J 17
3ltl|ata, S^cui $ack
CHARLES WILLIAM WASON
COLLECTION
CHINA AND THE CHINESE
THE GIFT OF
CHARLES WILLIAM WASON
CLASS OF 1876
1918
3 1924 070 596 816
Cornell University
Library
The original of this book is in
the Cornell University Library.
There are no known copyright restrictions in
the United States on the use of the text.
http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924070596816
THE
CAMBRIDGE
MODERN HISTORY
CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS
Uoniion: FETTER LANE, E.G.
C. F. CLAY, Manager
Onjinimtsi): loo, PRINCES STREKT
asnlin: A. ASHER AND CO.
ILeipjis: F. A. BROCKHAUS
aSomiBH snll Calcutta: MACMILLAN AND Co., Ltd.
All Rights reserved
THE
CAMBRIDGE
MODERN HISTORY
PLANNED BY
THE LATE LORD ACTON LL.D.
REGIUS PROFESSOR OF MODERN HISTORY
EDITED BY
A. W. WARD LiTT.D.
G. W. PROTHERO LiTT.D.
STANLEY LEATHES M.A.
VOLUME VI
THE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY
CAMBRIDGE
AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS
1909
y\jxsow
dDambrilige :
PRINTED BY JOHN CLAY, M.A.
AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS.
PREFACE.
THE present volume covers a section of time falling far short of
that implied by the literal meaning of the word. But it seems
hardly necessary to defend the use of the term " the Eighteenth Century,"
as denoting a period of Modern History with characteristics peculiar
to itself and exhibiting a more or less self-consistent development of
its own. We have accordingly, without doing much violence to ordinary
usage, restricted the application of the term to the years reaching
from the Peace of Utrecht and the supplementary pacifications to the
outbreak of the French Revolution. Moreover, the original design of this
work has made it necessary, not only to discuss in the volume dealing
with the Revolution itself those earlier aspects of the political and social
condition of France and of her administrative and financial system, as
well as those new currents of philosophical thought and literary effort,
which have to be taken into account in tracing its origin ; but also to
devote a large part of another volume, concerned with the history of
the United States, to a narrative of the War of Independence and an
examination of its causes. It has therefore been our desire to avoid
whatever recuiTence to these topics was not needed in order to make
clear the course of European history, and of the history of particular
States, within the limits deliberately chosen from the outset for the
present volume.
Nevertheless, as it seems to us, these limits may be justly designated
"natural"; in other words, they are prescribed by the nature of the
subject, and not only by our desire to adhere, in essential matters, to
the original scheme of this History. In the political annals of Europe,
and of those other parts of the world whose progress was directly affected
by that of the European States, a new epoch unmistakably begins with
the Peace of Utrecht, which is our starting-point, though, strictly
vi Preface.
speaking, that settlement can be called definitive only after the Treaties
of 1725 had confirmed those of 171S, 1714 and 1718. A solution had
at last been found for the great problem of the partition of the Spanish
inheritance between the Houses of Habsburg and Bourbon, and at the
same time for that of the Balance of Power which had long been, to all
intents and purposes, identical with the question of their historic rivalry.
During the whole of this epoch, down to the outbreak of the French
Revolutionary Wars, the Utrecht Treaties (if this name may be given to
the whole group) remained the established basis of the relations between
the European Powers. The Quadruple Alliance of 1718 and the Anglo-
Spanish War of 1719 enforced the Utrecht policy with not less rapidity
than success ; nor can there be any doubt but that, in its broad results,
the foreign policy of Stanhope and Dubois, and the long pacific entente
between England and France under Walpole and Fleury, were alike in
thorough consonance with the system carried through, notwithstanding
so many obstacles, at Utrecht. The eighteenth century witnessed repeated
departures from that system, and successive interruptions of the Peace of
Europe caused by a series of wars extending from that of the Polish to
that of the Bavarian Succession ; but, with certain exceptions, the several
Congresses which met in turn to bring about the conclusion of these
wars reestablished that Peace without great difficulty on the general
basis of the Utrecht arrangements. The most signal exception was
the appropriation of Silesia by Prussia in the War of the Austrian
Succession, and the maintenance of that conquest after the tremendous
struggle of the Seven Years' War ; but it should be pointed out that
the House of Austria had laid itself open to such a loss when it had
sought to settle its succession by means of a series of treaties negotiated
separately between itself and the other European Powers, instead of by
seeking to bring about a common agreement between them. The escheat
of Lorraine to France — an event of even greater moment for the destinies
of Europe than the transfer of Silesia to Prussia — was an event stipulated
by treaty a generation before it came to pass ; but it was none the less a
contravention of the Utrecht settlement, destined to avenge itself bitterly
upon both the Powers which were the true principals in the bargain —
upon Austria as well as upon France.
In eastern Europe, a new epoch begins after the Moslem advance had
been finally driven back at the gates of Vienna. The Turkish Power
henceforth virtually stood on the defensive against the European Powers ;
Preface. vii
and the Eastern Question became, what it has since remained, the
problem of restricting — perhaps ending — the dominion of the Turks
in Europe. The Turkish Wars of the eighteenth century ceased to
exercise any direct influence upon the general course of European affairs
after the Peace of Passarowitz had reduced the limits of the Turkish
empire, even as compared with those assigned to it at Carlowitz.
Henceforth, it was no longer in Austria, but in Russia, that the Porte
found its most determined foe, against whose advance it had to stand
on the defensive both before and after the new ambition of Joseph II
had fallen in with the plans inherited by Catharine II from Peter the
Great. That the Eastern Question was not solved in this century, was
due to the complications and jealousies of Western rather than Eastern
politics, and specially to the fact that the Eastern Powers were pre-
occupied by their Polish schemes. The intervention of Russia in the
concerns of Poland, facilitated by the unpatriotic selfishness of native
-pfoisanship, gave Frederick II his chance of pressing on a series of
annexations which he regarded as indispensable to the security of the
Prussian monarchy. Austria felt herself obliged to follow suit ; and the
First Partition of Poland, by which the Republic was shorn of nearly
one-third of its territory, proved the first step towards a consummation
not less subversive of the paramount authority of public law in Europe
than the French Revolutionary propaganda itself. But of the story
of the Partitions of Poland only the opening chapter properly apper-
tains to our present volume.
Among the principal European Powers, Great Britain is found,
at the outset of our period, and during by far the greater part of its
course, exercising an influence upon European public affairs such as she
was again to exercise, and then for a shorter time, only at the close of
the Napoleonic Wars. The primary cause of this influence is to be
sought in the leading part which Great Britain had played, through
the armed forces which she had sent forth or equipped, and by the way
in which they had been led to victory, in the great Spanish Succession
War; but that she maintained her political position so long was due
to further reasons, which it is part of the task of this volume to discuss.
The traditions of a free parliamentary government prevailed in England
more potently than ever before ; but they were no longer associated, as
they had been during most of the preceding century, with a mutability
of political system for which this nation had become proverbial. The
C. M. H. VI. "
viii Preface.
"principles of 1688" as formulated by Locke, to the origins of whose
political philosophy a separate section is devoted in this volume, had
become, in Sir Leslie Stephen's words, "the political bible of the
eighteenth century"; and they remained such till the French Revolution
changed both scope and method of modem political thought. To
the strength of constitutional, aided by that of dynastic, stability —
for Jacobitism had ceased to be a political force even before its final
effort — was added the stimulating influence of a well-considered foreign
policy far removed from insularity, and already conscious of the demands
of a world-empire. The power of Great Britain was already expanding
into that of a British empire extending from the East Indies to the
New World; and British enterprise was depriving Dutch and French
rivals of most of their share of the field, as it had of old aimed at
driving out the Spaniards and drove them out again when, after the
close of Ferdinand I's prudent reign, they had once more begun to
aspire to a revival of their old colonial power. Thus, under Chatham's
inspiring guidance, and in alliance with a King after Chatham's own
heart. Great Britain's star rose to an unprecedented height. Meanwhile
the "sister island" long remained down -trodden; nor was it till the close
of our period that Irish loyalty, in a season of danger to the empire, led
to a relaxation of some of the disabilities imposed upon the country,
and even obtained for it a transitory legislative independence. Before
this, Great Britain had to confront the rebellion of her American
colonies, the armed intervention of France and Spain, and the armed
neutrality of Russia and her allies. Some of the noblest representatives
of English parliamentary statesmanship had sought to withstand the
coercive legislation which had given rise to the colonial crisis; and its
termination was thus made easier. No general view of the history of Great
Britain during this period would be complete which should leave out of
sight the religious condition of its inhabitants. Without the renewal
of its religious life from within, no soundness of mind or muscle could
have arrested the decay into which, in the middle of the eighteenth
century, factiousness, frivolity, and vice seemed to be hurrying large
sections of the population.
While, until towards the close of this period the power and influence
of Great Britain steadily progressed, and even in the Peace of Versailles
(1783) her losses, with the one great exception of the insurgent colonies,
were relatively small and in respect of her colonial cessions to Spain
Preface. ix
were morally more than compensated by her retention of Gibraltar,
the European prestige as well as the maritime and colonial power of
France no less manifestly declined. Her struggle with Great Britain
for naval and colonial supremacy was decided in the course of a stirring
series of conflicts, treated partly in the chapter on the Conquest of
Canada which finds its proper place in our seventh volume, partly in
the portion of the present volume which offers a connected account
of Indian history from the days of the Moghul empire to those of the
rule of Warren Hastings, the first Governor-General of India. The
failure of the policy of Louis XV (which was far from being always
the policy of his Ministers) must be ascribed, partly to the personal
shortcomings of the sovereign himself and some of those whom he trusted
in Court or camp, partly and chiefly to thp excessive strain put upon
the resources of France by the efforts which she made simultaneously
in the European conflict and in the struggle for supremacy beyond
seas. Whether the "reversal of alliances" in the middle of the
century, which on the part of France implied a renunciation of her
ancient policy of antagonism to the House of Habsburg, was in itself
irrational and inopportune, or whether its breakdown was due to the
conduct, rather than the conception, of the new "system," there can at
least be no reason for regarding that breakdown as the result of internal
rottenness in a State whose administration was in many respects un-
surpassed, or a people whose inborn vigour was, under the guidance of
genius, to shake the world.
To no Government was the superiority of French administrative
methods better known than to that of the great Prussian King, and
by none was it more openly acknowledged. To Frederick II his father
had bequeathed the sinews of war in the shape of an army incomparably
disciplined and a well-filled treasury; and thus he was enabled to put
into execution his design, conceived with unexampled audacity and carried
out with wonderful determination, of raising his poor and straggling
kingdom to the position of a great European Power. The story of this
achievement will be found narrated in this, volume without the distortions
of either apotheosis or apology; and, where the views of historical
scholars differ as to the immediate motives of Frederick the Great's
action, room has been found for an expression of this difference. Alike
when he first invaded Silesia, and when he fell upon his Saxon neighbour,
as when he thwarted the dynastic ambition of Joseph II on behalf of
62
X Preface.
the Princes of the Empire, Frederick the Great's plan of action lay clear
before his eyes both in war and in peace ; and it was one from which the
State that through him had taken its place among the chief motive
forces of European political life could not swerve with impunity. For a
time it seemed as if his successor were, without any strain upon the
military and financial resources of a State of mettle so proved, to add
fresh laurels to those of the great King ; and the politically effete Dutch
oligarchy collapsed among its canals and counting-houses, when, in 1787,
a Prussian force invaded the Low Countries to vindicate the honour of
the House of Orange.
To the history of the Austrian Netherlands — down to the time of
their complete alienation from a Government whose intentions with
regard to them they with reason suspected, and for whose domestic
reforms they had nothing but distaste — attention is directed elsewhere
in this volume, in which it has been sought to include some notice of
every European State whose progress or decline affected the general
course of European history. In that course there has not often been a
time when the several members of the European family were less disposed
to acknowledge among them any principle of unity or paramount
authority ; and the system of a concert of Powers was still in an im-
perfectly developed stage of recognition or acceptance. Religious
differences had almost (though not quite) ceased to count ; and the
diplomacy of each State, or of each dynasty, was single -mindedly
confined to the advance of its particular interests. The Austrian
dominions had been kept together by the ceaseless anxiety of Charles VI
for the maintenance of their cohesion ; nor was it on the accession of
Maria Theresa permanently disturbed except by the loss of a single
province. Once again, and more seriously, imperilled by the ambition
of Joseph II, whose miscalculations of season and method should not
be allowed to detract from the honour due to the nobility and
humanity of his purpose, the power of the House of Habsburg held
out, as it was to hold out for many a generation afterwards, though
the Imperial Crown still worn by its chief seemed to have become
little more than a highly respectable ornament. Russia, diplomatically
speaking a member of the family of European States only from the
Treaty of Amsterdam (1717) onwards, virtually decided the issue of the
greatest continental struggle of the eighteenth century — the Seven
Years' War — and, under the rule of the "most political woman" that
Preface. xi
any century (unless it be that of Semiramis) has produced, appeared
ready to arbitrate in the still more critical conflict of the French
Revolutionary War. The northern neighbours of Russia had sunk into
Powers of the second and third rank — Sweden paralysed by the selfish
contests of rival oligarchical factions; Denmark under an absolute
monarchy tempered by ministerial wisdom or endangered by ministerial
rashness. In the south, Spain under her first Bourbon King, after a
passing eifort towards better things, sank back into the condition of
misrule and bankruptcy in which she had been left by her last Habsburg
sovereign. And though, under the second Bourbon King, a further
fraction of her former Italian dominions, which Philip V's ambitious
consort had succeeded in recovering as a Spanish appanage, was restored
to the dynasty, it was not till the reign of Charles III that Spain
seemed for a time about to assume a place among the progressive States
of Europe. But neither the reforms of Florida Blanca and his colleagues,
nor even the expulsion of the Jesuits, which here and in Portugal seemed
more astounding than it did in contemporary France, could change the
economic condition of the nation; and the foreign policy of Spain,
after finally settling down into a willingness to fulfil the obligations of
the Bourbon Family Compact by means of which Choiseul had hoped to
revive the political ascendancy of France, ended in a peace which left
Gibraltar still in British hands. In Italy, the Papacy passed out of the
tenure of an adversary of the Bourbons and a friend of the Jesuits into
that of a pontiff pledged to the overthrow of the Order. But neither
the Papacy nor any other Italian Government exercised any considerable
influence upon the course of European politics; and it was only the
mutual jealousy of foreign Powers that stayed the immediate downfall
of Venice and Genoa as independent States. Switzerland, though
largely dependent upon France through her unhappy foreign-service
system, contrived to preserve her so-called neutrality and, amidst an
endless succession of "class- wars," her existing political institutions,
till the advent of the French Revolution.
The intellectual note of the "eighteenth century" is that of
" enlightenment " — in other words, the self-confident revolt of the trained
human intellect against tradition for tradition's sake, and against what-
ever that intellect holds to be superstition or prejudice. In the great
majority of European States, which had passed through the stage of the
diminution of oligarchies, based on the rights and liberties of particular
xii Preface.
classes, and were under strong monarchical rule, it was unavoidable that
enlightenment, if it asserted itself at all, should prevail through the
authority of a benevolent despotism ; but, as the example of English
society in the eighteenth century shows, there was no exclusive connexion
between. the methods of despotism and the principles of enlightenment.
Of the enlightened absolute monarchy of the period examples will be
found in many of the chapters succeeding each other in the present
volume — from great historical figures like those of Catharine II and
Frederick II, and above aU that of Joseph II, the true protagonist of
the Aiuf'Mdrung, to lesser potentates or their Ministers — Charles III in
Parma and the Two Sicilies, and his reforming Administration in Spain,
Leopold II, more especially as Grand Duke of Tuscany, and the BernstorfFs
and the unfortunate Struensee in Denmark. But an age of despots,
whether it be also an age of enlightenment or not, must always exhibit
both sides of the medal ; and thus we find here, on the obverse, a prince
whose ambition it is, like that of Frederick the Great, to be nothing
more than the first servant of a State upon aU of whose members rests
the same duty of self-devotion to the welfare of the whole ; and on the
reverse — Sardanapalus in the shape of Louis XV. It was Goethe,
born in the middle of the eighteenth century, who drew this latter
parallel, while at the same time reverencing no type of humanity so
highly as that of conscious beneficence to the world around it. And, as
the commentator who recalls these traits in Goethe reminds us, it was he
again who with unerring finger pointed to the most signal weaknesses
in the century from which he came forth — its contempt for true originality,
its lack of compassion for failure, and its impatience at the inevitably
slow process of historic growth.
In issuing the present volume at a rather later date than we had,
intended, we desire to tender an apology to those of our contributors
who had some time ago sent in the chapters written by them, and who
may have been inconvenienced by the delay in publication. In no
instance had any of the contributions to this volume reached us more
punctually, or been prepared for publication with greater care and
completeness, than the three chapters written by the late Mr Robert
Nisbet Bain, Assistant Librarian at the British Museum, whose
lamented death occurred after this Preface was already in type. Mr Bain
was one of the contributors selected by Lord Acton at the inception of
Preface. xiii
the present work, as a historical writer who had few rivals in his
intimacy with the languages and the historical literature of northern and
eastern Europe ; and, as our readers are aware, this Histcyry is deeply
indebted to him for the ample share he has taken in its production.
We wish to express our obligations to Mr J. F. Chance, who, besides
contributing an important section with its bibliography, has permitted
us the free use of a comprehensive Bibliography compiled by him for
the political history of Europe during a considerable part of the period
covered by this volume. We have also to thank Mr H. G. Aldis,
of Peterhouse and the University Libraiy, for the compilation of the
Index and for other services rendered in connexion with this volume,
Miss A. D. Greenwood for drawing up the Chronological Table, and
Mr A. T. Bartholomew, of Peterhouse and the University Library, for
aid in the matter of the Bibliographies.
A. W. W.
G. W. P.
S. L.
May, 1909.
XV
TABLE OF CONTENTS.
CHAPTER I.
GREAT BRITAIN UNDER GEORGE I.
(1) The Hanoverian Suooession.
By A. W. Ward, Litt.D., F.B.A., Master of Peterhouse.
Characteristics of the Hanoverian Succession
The House of Guelf and its Luneburg branch .
Rise of the House of Hanover ....
Unification and Electorship .....
George William, Ernest Augustus, and the Empire
The Electress Sophia and her eldest son
The Succession question Tmder William and Mary
George Lewis and the English Succession .
The Electress Sophia and the Act of Succession.
The Grand Alliance
Bemstorff. Queen Anne and the Succession
Waiting policy of the House of Hanover .
Marlborough. The High-fliers . .
Rivers in Hanover. Bothmer in London .
The Succession and the Peace of Utrecht .
Intrigues of Oxford and Bolingbroke .
Parliament of 1714. The situation grows critical
The Electoral Prince's writ
The Queen's letters. Death of the Electress Sophia
Death of Queen Anne. Accession of George I .
Character and surroundings of George I
George I's Hanoverian counsellors. Significance of his accession
Church affairs
PAOB
1
2
3
ib.
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
ib.
12
13
14
16
16
17
18
19
20
21
(2) The Fobeton Policy of George I.
(1714-21.)
By J. F. Chance, M.A., Trinity College.
The foreign policy of this period ... . .
Direction of British foreign affairs. Bemstorff ....
Relations with France, the United Provinces, and the Emperor
The Barrier Treaty. Bremen and Verden
21
22
ib.
23
xvi Contents.
PAGE
The northern treaties. The Baltic commerce .... 24
Treaties with Spain and Austria . 25
Convention with France. Northern affairs. Gortz ... 26
The Triple Alliance. Arrests of Gyllenborg and Gortz . . 27
Hanoverian and Russian negotiations with Sweden ... 28
Spanish invasion of Sardinia. The ''Plan" .... 29
Subsidy to Austria. Progress of the "Plan" .... 30
The Quadruple Alliance 31
Peace of Fassarowitz. Byng's expedition 32
Cape Passaro. Alberoni attacks Great Britain and France . 33
The first Treaty of Vienna ib.
Northern affairs. The War with Spain 34
Death of Charles XII. Submission of Spain. The Prussian Treaties 35
Treaties with Sweden 36
End of the Northern War. Peace of Nystad .... 37
Discord wiljb the Emperor ib.
Strained relations with France 38
Breach with Austria. Treaties of Madrid 89
CHAPTER II.
THE AGE OF WALPOLE AND THE PELHAMS.
By H. W. V. Tempekley, M.A., Fellow and Assistant
Tutor of Peterhouse.
(1)
The features of the age 40
The "Bubble." Walpole's rise to power 41
Power of the first two Georges. Position of Walpole . . 42
Influence of Jacobitism 43
Walpole and the country gentry. Dissent. Walpole and finance 44
The Sinking Fund 45
Walpole and the Land Tax 46
His Excise Scheme 47
Failure of the Excise Scheme 48
Walpole's economic policy ii.
Mercantilism. The Balance of Trade 49
Colonial policy ■ • 60
The old Colonial System 51
Navigation Act. "Molasses" Act 52
Pelham's Colonial Manufactures Prohibition Act ... 53
Political and economic conditions in the Colonies . . 54
Walpole's economic policy as a whole .... 65
Adam Smith and the old Colonial System 66
Foreign policy during Walpole's Administration ... 57
Effecte of the Treaties of Vienna 58
Alliance of Hanover. Spain declares war 69
Treaty of Seville 60
Separation of England from France. Newcastle and Stanhope . 61
Contents.
xvii
England's attitude in the War of the Polish Succession
The first Facte de famille , . . . .
England's disputes with Spain
Growing hitterness hetween England and Spain
Proposals for an accommodation. The Asiento
Reception of the Convention in England .
Disputes hetween England and Spain. War declared
Prance temporarily neutral
Development of the English parliamentary system
Conditions of party government under Walpole .
Bolingbroke and the Opposition ....
Walpole's fall. His character ....
Rule of the Pelhams. Pitt's early years
Character and influence of Henry Pelham .
The Coalition Ministry of Pitt and Newcastle
The advent of Pitt to power. Pitt and Walpole
(2)
Influence of politics on religion. Queen Caroline
Theological controversy. The Establishment
General state of the clergy and of religious life
Religion and the masses. The individualism of the age
The Welsh Revival. William Law
Early years of Whitefield and Wesley
Their work in Great Britain and America .
Characters and achievements of Whitefield and Wesley
Wesley and the Establishment .
Wesley's separation from the Establishment
Political views of Wesley ....
Wesley's influence on religious life
General results of Methodism
PAGE
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
ib.
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
CHAPTER III.
JACOBITISM AND THE UNION.
By C. Sanford I'eiiiiy, M.A., Clare College, Burnett-Fletcher
Professor of History in the University of Aberdeen.
Jacobitism and the permanence of the Union .... 90
Provisions of the Act of Union 91
James' abortive expedition to Scotland 92
General Election, 1708 93
Greenshields' case 94
Toleration and patronage 95
The malt duty 96
James' diplomacy, 1714-6 97
Mar raises the standard. Action of the Government ... 98
Mackintosh enters England 99
Sheriffmuir 100
Porster's surrender at Preston 101
xvm
Contents.
James in Scotland
His departure. Punitive measures
Sweden, Spain, and the Jacobites
Alberoni's Ai-mada
Glenshiel. The malt tax
The Disarming Act
Forfeited estates. The Porteous mob
France and Jacobite intrigue
Maurice de Saze's expeditionary force
Prince Charles sails to Scotland .
From Glenfinnan to Edinburgh .
Prestonpans. Negotiations with France
Charles enters England
The retreat from Derby. Falkirk
Cnlloden
Reprisals. Jacobite forfeitures. Scottish episcopacy
Highland dress proscribed. Heritable jurisdictions abolished
Act of Pardon. The Elibank Plot. Jacobitism ceases as an active
force
PAGE
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
CHAPTER IV.
THE BOURBON GOVERNMENTS IN FRANCE AND SPAIN. I.
(1714-26.)
By Edward Abmstrong, M.A., F.B.A., Fellow, Bursar, and
Lecturer in Modem History, Queen's College, Oxford.
Death of Louis XIV. The Regency 120
Philip V and the Regent Orleans 121
Italian aims of Elisabeth Farnese ...... 122
Alliance of France and England. Dubois 123
Foreign policy of Alberoni 124
The Quadruple Alliance. Fall of Alberoni .... 125
The Franco-Spanish marriages 126
Constitutional and other changes during the Regency. Depart-
mental Councils 127
Financial collapse 128
Quarrel between the Regent and the Parlement .... 129
The Cellamare conspiracy. Suppression of Breton liberties . 130
Ministry of Dubois 131
Death of Orleans 132
Society under the Regency ib.
Progress in Paris and in the provinces 133
Abdication of Philip V 134
Character of Elisabeth 135
The government of Spain. Personality of Philip V . . . 136
Reign of Luis I. His death. Philip V again ascends the throne . 137
Italian claims of Don Carlos 138
Ripperda's mission to Vienna 139
Rupture of the Infanta's engagement 140
Contents.
XIX
Alliance of Hanover. Austro-Spanish alliance .
Schemes for a Stewart restoration. Disgrace of Ripperda
Marriage of Louis XV. Fall of the Duke of Bourbon
PAGE
141-2
143
144
CHAPTER V.
THE BOURBON GOVERNMENTS IN FRANCE AND SPAIN. II.
(1727-46.)
By Edwaed Aemsteong, M.A., F.B.A.
The designs of Blisaheth Farnese 145
Preliminaries of Paris 146
Congress of Soissons 147
Illness of Philip V and Louis XV 148
Treaties of Seville and Vienna. Death of Antonio Farnese . 149
Don Carlos in Italy 150
Spanish capture of Oran. Don Carlos in Parma . . 151
War of the Polish Succession 152
First Family Compact. Don Carlos conquers Naples . . . 163
Campaigns in Lombard y 154
Preliminaries of Vienna 155
Friction between France and Spain. Marriage of Don Carlos . 156
Trouble in American waters. . Fleury's policy .... 157
War between Spain and England 167-8
Death of Fleury 169
War of the Austrian Succession ib.
Second Family Compact. Campaign of 1745 .... 160
Desertion of Spain by France 161
Death of Philip V ib.
Review of Fleury's Administration 162-3
Character of Louis XV . . 164
French society under Louis XV . 165
The successors of Alberoni 166
The Court of Philip V ib.
Character and career of Elisabeth Farnese ..... 167
CHAPTER VI.
FINANCIAL EXPERIMENTS AND COLONIAL DEVELOPMENT.
By E. A. Benians, M.A., Fellow of St John's College.
The heritage of the War of the Spanish Succession . . . 168
John Law 169
I^w's financial and commercial ideas ...... 170-1
Foundation of the Bank and the Company of the West . . 172
The extension of the Company of the West .... 173
The Company of the Indies. Law's System at its height . . 174
The JJen<e«-holders. Position of Law 176
Collapse of the System 176
XX Contents.
Significance of Law's work 177
The South Sea Company 178
The South Sea scheme. The Bubbles 179
The crisis 180
Punitive measures. Action of Walpole 181
Later history of the Company i&.
Colonial development. The Ostend Company .... 182
Colonisation in America 183
The West Indies. Economic and social conditions . . . 184
European Powers in the West Indies 185
West Africa 186
The Slave Trade. The African Company 187
Abolition of the Slave Trade. Cape Colony. The Boers . . 188
Colonial independence 189
Collapse of the old Colonial System 190
CHAPTER VII,
POLAND UNDER THE SAXON KINGS.
By the late R. Nisbet Bain, Assistant Librarian,
British Museum.
Competitors for the throne on the death of John III Sobieski . 191
Election of Augustus II ib.
Lithuania and the Saxon army-corps 192
Augustus II and the Northern War t6.
Last years of Augustus II 193
Candidature of Stanislaus Leszczynsld i6.
The Powers and the Convocation Diet 194
Election of Stanislaus 195
Beginning of the War of the Polish Succession .... 196
Siege of Danzig. Abdication of Stanislaus ..... 197
Accession of Augustus HI 198
Rise and predominance of the Czartoiyskis 198-9
Efforts of the Czartoryskis to depose Augustus III . . . 200
His death ib.
CHAPTER VIII.
THE WAR OF THE AUSTRIAN SUCCESSION.
(1) The Pbagmatio Sanction.
By C. T. Atkinson, M.A., Fellow of Exeter College, formerly
Demy of Magdalen College, Oxford.
Charles VI and the Pragmatic Sanction 201
The Powers and the Pragmatic Sanction 202
State of the Austrian monarchy under Charles VI . . . 203
Death of Charles VI. Maria Theresa and her Ministers . . 204
Inopportuneness of the death of Charles VI ... . 205
Contents.
XXI
(2) Prussia under Frederick WiUjIam: I.
By Dr Emil Daniels.
Accession of Frederick William I. His economic reforms
Acquisition of Stettin and Treaty of Havelberg .
British overtures. The King's testament .
Advance of Prussia's position in Europe
English marriage negotiations. The ''Tobacco College"
Influence of Grumbkow. The Crown Prince Frederick
The Crown Prince's escape frustrated ....
Frederick William and the Prussian army .
The "enrolment" system. Leopold of Dessau .
Military drill. The King's republicanism .
Compulsory service. The officers' caste
Finance. Immigration.
Fiscalism .........
The royal domains
Condition of the peasantry. Taxation
Reorganisation of the Government departments .
Power of the revenue officials. Councillors of Taxes .
Advancement of trade and industries ....
Economical and educational progress ....
Ecclesiastical policy
Importance of the reign
(3) The War.
By C. T, Atkinson, M.A.
Maria Theresa and the Powers ......
Frederick II invades Silesia
Belleisle's mission. Battle of Mollwitz ....
Bavarian advance on Vienna
Convention of Klein-Schnellendorf. Charles Albert's mistake
Capture of Prague
Bavaria overrun. Frederick in Moravia ....
Battle of Chotusitz
Peace of Berlin. Maillebois' march and retirement .
Belleisle's retreat. Fall of Prague
Italian aifairs .........
Charles Emmanuel of Savoy
The ''Pragmatic Army" .......
Bavaria evacuated. Battle of Dettingen ....
Treaties of Worms and Fontainebleau ....
The Austrians in Alsace. Union of Frankfort .
Frederick's invasion of Bohemia
Bavaria declares herself neutral. Sohr. Fontenoy
Maurice de Saxe in the Netherlands. State of Italy
Battle of Kesselsdorf. Treaty of Dresden ....
The end of the War in Italy
Maurice de Saxe's conquests in the Low Countries
Battle of Roucoux. Fall of d'Argenson ....
Battle of Laufieldt. A&irs at sea
Peace of Aix-la^Chapelle
Results of the War
PAOE
206
206
207-8
209
210
211
212
213-4
216
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
226
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
ib.
2S7
ib.
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
246
246
247
248
249
250
xxii Contents.
CHAPTER IX,
THE SEVEN YEARS' WAR.
By Dr Emil Daniels.
FAOB
Convention of Westminster and Treaty of Versailles . . 261
French and Austrian alliances. Kaunitz 252
Russian armaments. Frederick's preparations .... 253
Austrian precautions and preparations. Prussian invasion of
Saxony ..,.,.,.,.. 254
Capitulation of Pirna. Winter quarters ..... 255
Invasion of Bohemia 256
The armies meet before Prague 257
Battle of Prague 268-9
Siege of Prague 260
Battle of Kolin 261
Prussian evacuation of Bohemia ....... 262
Battle of Hastenbeck. Convention of Klosterzeven . . . 263
The Russians in East Prussia c 264
The "Combined Army" 265
Critical position of Frederick II , 266
Divergent views of Soubise and Hildburghausen . . . 267
Movements of the Prussian army 268
Condition of the French army 269
Battle of Rossbach 270-1
The " Army of Observation." Ferdinand of Brunswick . . 272
The Austrians in Silesia 273
Frederick II and German Protestant feeling .... 274
Battle of Leuthen 276
Preparations for the new campaign 276
Operations against Austrians, Swedes and Russians . . . 277
Siege of Olmutz 278
Russian and Swedish operations 279
Russians and Prussians on the Oder 280
Advance of Frederick II 281
Battle of Zorndorf 282-4
Results of the battle 286
The Russian retreat 286
Fermor's operations in Fomerania 287
Daun near Dresden 288
The Prussians surprised at Hochkirch 289
After Hochkirch 290
The Russians in Posen and the Mark 291
Battle of Kunersdorf 292
Despondency of Frederick 293
Opening of the campaign of 1760 294
Battle of Liegnitz 296
Berlin occupied. The Austrians evacuate Saxony . . . 296
Campaign of 1761. Prussian losses 297
Frederick's hopeless situation. Death of the Tsarina Elizabeth 298
Russo-Prussian alliance. Preliminaries of Fontainebleau . . 299
Peace of Hubertusburg 300
Contents.
xxiii
CHAPTER X.
RUSSIA UNDER ANNE AND ELIZABETH.
By the late R. Nisbet Bain.
Osterman
Accession of Anne. Biren ....
Russia dominated by Germans
Osterman and the Austro-Russian alliance .
Beginning of the Russo-Turkish War
Miinnich and the first Crimean campaign .
Campaigns of 1737 and 1738
Results of the Russo-Turkish War
Death of Anne. Accession of Ivan VI
Beginning of Wars of the Austrian Succession.
The coup d'etat of December 6, 1741 .
Character of Elizabeth Petrovna. Dismissal of
Miinnich
The new Russian Chancellor, Alexis BestuzhefP
Conclusion of the War with Sweden .
The '' Botta-Lopukhina Conspiracy" .
Fredierick II intrigues against Bestuzheff
Bestuzheflf counsels war against Frederick .
Triumph of the Austrian pai-ty at St Petersburg
Political duel between Frederick and Bestuzheff
Treaties of Westminster and Versailles
Accession of Russia to Franco-Austrian Alliance
Fall of Bestuzheflf
Differences between the Allies. Choiseul .
Campaign of Kunersdorf
Elizabeth holds the anti-Prussian alliance together
Campaign of 1760
Elizabeth Insists on the permanent crippling of Prussia
Death of Elizabeth Petrovna. Accession of Peter III
Osterman and
PAGE
301
302
303
304
305-6
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
313
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
CHAPTER XI.
THE REVERSAL OF ALLIANCES AND THE FAMILY COMPACT.
By Jean Lemoine.
Significance of Fleury's death
The King's favourites. Madame de Pompadour
Peace of Aix-la^Chapelle
Colonial conflicts. The Boundary Commission .
Anglo-French negotiations on American boundaries. Mirepoix
Political isolation of England. Mission of Nivernais to Berlin
Kaunitz' plan of an Austro-French alliance ...
The " Reversal of Alliances "
Significance and reception of First Treaty of Versaille's
Effects of Frederick II's invasion of Saxony
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
'336
337
338
C. M. H. VI.
XXIV
Contents.
of
the
Second Treaty of Versailles ....
Russo-Austriau alliance ....
Fall of Bernis. Choiseal Chief Minister
Third Treaty of Versailles ....
Choiseul and the negotiations for peace
France and Spain. The " Family Compact "
The Family Compact and the peace negotiations
England declares war against Spain. Last phase
Peace of Huhertusburg ....
Treaty of Paris. The Parlement ....
Expulsion of the Jesuits from France .
Choiseul's army and navy reforms
His foreign policy
Its results in the Mediterranean ....
Choiseul's commercial schemes in the New World
Choiseul and the Eastern question
The ''King's Secret" and the Eastern question. Poland
Choiseul's Polish policy
Russian fleet in Greek waters. Fall of Choiseul
Causes of his fall ......
The "Triumvirate.'' First Partition of Poland .
France and the Swedish monarchical revolution .
Discredit of Louis XV. His death
State of France at the death of Louis XV .
War,
PAGE
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
ib.
349
350
351
352
353
354
855
356
357
358
359
860
CHAPTER XII.
SPAIN AND PORTUGAL.
(1746-94.)
By the Rev. Geoege Edmundson, M.A., formerly Fellow
and Tutor of Brasenose College, Oxford.
(1) Spain vndeb Ferdinand VI and Charles III.
Accession of Ferdinand VI. His policy and advisers .
Ministry of Carvajal and Ensenada
Peace of Aix-la-Chapelle. Treaty of Aranjuez .
Wall Foreign Minister. Fall of Ensenada. Keene .
Services of Ensenada. Minorca and Gibraltar .
Deaths of Queen Barbara and King Ferdinand .
Character and policy of Charles III
Renewal of the Family Compact. War with England
Portuguese campaign. Loss of Havana and Manila .
Peace concluded. Grimaldo and Squillaci Ministers .
Rising at Madrid. Squillaci dismissed. Aranda restores order
Expulsion of the Jesuits
O'Reilly in Louisiana. Falkland Islands dispute
Expedition against Algiers
Florida Blanca Minister. North American War
Spain declares war against Great Britain ....
361
362
363
864
365
366
367
368
869
870
371
372
373
374
376
376
Contents.
XXV
Secret negotiations about Gibraltar
Mission of Cumberland. The Armed Neutrality
Capture of Minorca. Siege of Gibraltar
Negotiations for peace. Difficulties about Gibraltar
Peace concluded. Mediterranean piracy suppressed
Last years of Charles. His death
Reforms of Florida Blanca and his colleagues
General progress in Spain .....
PAGE
377
378
379
380
38X
382
383
384
(2) Portugal.
(1760-93.)
John V succeeded by Joseph 1 384
Ministry of Pombal (Carvalho) 385
The great earthquake ib.
Proceedings against the Jesuits. Execution of the Tavoras . 386
Expulsion of the Jesuits. Pombal's reforms .... 387
Fall of Pombal. Maria I and Pedro III 388
Dom John Regent . . ib.
(3) Brazil.
(Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries.)
Dutch efforts for the conquest
Exploration. Mining .
Brazil in the sixteenth century.
of Brazil
Portuguese undisturbed rule. Missions.
Boundary disputes in the south .
Pombal's reforms. Movement for independence
389
390
391
392
CHAPTER XIII.
GREAT BRITAIN.
(1756-93.)
(1) WiiiiJAM Pitt the Elder.
By Dr Wolfgang Michael, Professor of History in the
University of Freiburg-im-Breisgau.
Pitt and the Seven Years' War 393
His beginnings and personality . . .... 394
Walpole and Pitt 395
Walpole, the Pelhams, and Pitt 396
France and Great Britain 397
Changes in the system of European alliances .... 398
The "Reversal of Alliances" 399
Convention of Westminster and Treaty of Versailles . . . 400
Franco-Austrian alliance ........ 401
Critical position of Frederick II 402
Loss of Minorca. Pitt demanded by the nation . . . 403
c2
xxvi Contents.
PAQE
Pitt's first Ministry 404
Execution of Byng. Dismissal of Pitt 405
Pitt resumes office with Newcastle 406
Military and naval undertakings 407
The Army of Observation. Limits of the Anglo-Prussian alliance 408
No English fleet sent into the Baltic 409
The English and French American colonies .... 410
English and French colonial rivalry 411
Imminence of war. The Indian tribes 412
Schemes of colonial federation 413
Colonial difficulties 414
Pitt's colonial policy 415
Accession of George III. Significance of the event . . . 416
Views of the young King and Bute 417
Peace negotiations broken off by Pitt 418
Opposition to Pitt in the Cabinet 419
Resignation of Pitt 420
War with Spain. Negotiations for a separate peace . . . 421
Peace of Paris 422-3
(2) The King's Friends.
By J. M. RiGG, Inspector of Manuscripts under the
Historical Manuscripts Commission.
Bute and "the King's Friends" 423
Bedford, Bute, and their followers 424
New policy. Measures and men 426
Fall of Pitt. Rupture with Spain. Conduct of the War . . 426
Desertion of Prussia and overtures for peace. Ministerial changes 427
Peace of Paris 428
Reception of the Peace in England. Unpopularity of the
Government 429
Retirement of Bute ......... ib.
The GrenvUle-Bedford Administration and Wilkes . . . 430
Waiver of privilege and expulsion of Wilkes . . . 431
Further proceedings ......... 432
The American fiscal question ... . . . ib.
Reinforcement of Navigation Laws. Stamp Act . . . 433
Regency Act. The King and the Government. Its fall . . 434
The Rockingham Administration. Stamp Act .... 435
Repeal of Stamp Act. Fall of Rockingham's Government . . 436
Character of Chatham's Administration ..... 437
American port duties. The Crown and India .... 438
Impotence of Grafton's Government 439
Legislation. Wilkes once more ....... 440
Wilkes, Junius, and the Constitution 441
Burke's policy. Rally of the Opposition. Ministerial changes.
North 442
Futile concession to America. The Falkland Isles . . . 443
Corruption in the Admiralty. Freedom of the Press . . 444
Royal Marriage Act. East India Act 446
Exclusion of East Indian tea from American ports . . 446
Contents.
xxvu
PAGE
Prohibitory Act. Commencement of hostilities .... 447
Rockingham and Chatham. Lightheartedness of the British
Government 448
The Anti-British league 449
The Administration virtually reconstructed .... 450
Unsatisfactory state of the navy 451
The War in West Indian and European waters .... 452
In American .......... 453
And in East Indian waters 454
Reforms and projects of Reform 455
Fall of the Administration 456
(3) The Yeabs of Peace, and the Rise op the Youngeb Pitt.
(1782-93.)
By Mautin J. GrEiFFiN, LL.D., C.M.G., Parliamentary
Librarian of Canada.
The Rockingham Ministry
The Irish Parliament ......
Jealousy between Fox and Shelburne .
Financial reforms. Peace negotiations
Death of Rockingham. Ministerial changes
Provisional Peace with the American Colonies .
Resignation of Shelburne .....
Peace concluded with America and the Allies
Parliamentary Reform. Indian affairs
Failure of Fox' India Bill
New Administration formed by Pitt .
Pitt's first India BiU
New Parliament. Indian affairs ....
Pitt's second India Bill carried. Ireland .
Trial of Warren Hastings. The Prince of Wales
The Prince's marriage. The Slave Trade .
The American loyalists. Regency debates .
Regency Bill passed. Irish affairs
Nootka Sound. India
The Whig schism. Breach between Fox and Burke
Imminence of war
Revolutionary propaganda. French declaration of war
Beginning of the great struggle with France
467
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
ib.
477
478
CHAPTER XIV.
IRELAND IN THE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY.
By RoBEET DuNLOP, M.A., Victoria University.
The new period of Irish history 479
England's claim to legislate for Ireland 480
Opportunity for a legislative Union neglected. The "Irish Interest" 481
Effects of the destruction of the woollen industry . . . 482
XXVIU
Contents.
The population and the cultivation of the soU. Middlemen
Periodical famines. Anti-English feeling rises. Monetary system
Wood's Halfpence. Swift's Drapiei's Letters
Character of the administration of the country .
The English Interest. Archhishop Boulter
Boulter's policy. Government by the Undertakers
Political aims of Archbishop Stone
Stone and the Undertakers. Religious toleration
Agricultural distress. Whiteboys. Oakboys
Steelboys. Political situation at the death of George II
Demand for limiting duration of Parliament. Townshend's vice-
royalty
Octennial Act. Session of 1769
A parliamentary majority purchased. Viceroyalty of Harcourt
Commercial distress. Buckinghamshire Viceroy .
Non-importation pledges. Rise of the Volunteers
Demand for Free Trade. A short Money Bill .
Free Trade granted. Grattan proposes Legislative Independence
Perpetual Mutiny BiU. Volunteer Convention .
Legislative Independence conceded
Renunciation agitation. Parliamentary Reform .
Reform Bill rejected. Protection demanded
Corn Laws. Pitt's project of a Commercial Union . .
Commercial proposals dropped. Tithes ....
King's illness. Regency question. Conclusion ,
VASE
483
484
485
a.
486
487
488
489
490
491
492
493
494
496
496
497
498
499
600
601
602
603
604
605
CHAPTER XV.
INDIA.
(1) The Moohul Empire.
By the Right Hon. Sir Alfred Comyn Lyall, K.C.B., G.C.I.E.,
F.B.A., LL.D., Honorary Fellow of King's College.
Points of contact between the histories of Europe and Asia . 606
East and West in the sixteenth century 607
The Mohammadan dynasties in India 608
Babar's expeditions 609
The Moghul empire founded 610
Reverses at restoration of the Emperor Humfiyun , . . 611
Akbar's accession and successes 612
Akbar at the height of his power 613
Religious policy of Akbar 614
Wars of Jehangir in south-western India 616
Camp and Court of Jehangir 616
Shah Jehan's accession 617
Wars in the Dekhan and in Afghanistan 618
Deposition of Shah Jehan by Aurungzeb 619
State of India under Shah Jehan 620
Sivaji and the Maratha revolt 621
Aurungzeb's wars in southern India 622
Contents.
XXIX
Death of Aurungzeb. Decline of the Moghul empire
Dissolution of the empire
End of the Moghul dynasty
Internal constitution of the empire
Frontier difEculties. Afghanistan
Rise of the British dominion in India
Occupation hy Europeans of the sea-coast
PAGE
623
624
626
526
627
628
629
(2) The Engush and French in India.
(1720-63.)
By P. E. RoBEBTs, B.A., late Scholar of Worcester
College, Oxford.
The history of Europeans in India, 1720-44 .... 629
The East India and South Sea Companies 630
Growth of Bombay and Calcutta 631
Growth of Madras 632
Progress of the French Company before the outbreak of war with
England 633
Comparative resources of English and French in 1744 634
Expedition of Labourdonuais 636
Capture of Madras 636
Quarrel of Dupleix and Labourdonuais 637
Siege of Pondicherry. Peace of Aix-la-Chapelle . . . 638
Dynastic wars in southern India 639
Brilliant success of the French 640
Dupleix and Bussy. French progress checked .... 641
Fall of Dupleix. Godeheu's Treaty 642
Godeheu and Dupleix 643
Financial policy of Dupleix 644
Character of Dupleix . 646
Ungenerous treatment of Dupleix. Bussy in the Dekhan. Lally
in southern India ..... ... 646
Operations of Lally ..... 647
Forde's campaign. Clive. Siege of Madras .... 648
End of French dominion in India 649
Reasons for English success and French failure .... 660
(3) Clivb and Warbbn Hastings.
By P. E. RoBEETs.
The English in Bengal. Siraj-ud-daula's march on Calcutta
The Black Hole. Recapture of Calcutta
Surrender of Chandemagore
Conspiracy with Mir Jafar. Battle of Plassey
Plassey and after .....
Defeat of the Dutch
CUve's policy
Presents from native Powers
Deposition of Mir Jafar. Treatment of Mir Kasim
561
662
553
664
655
656
567
558
659
XXX Contents.
PAGE
Inland trade duties. Mir Kasim driven into war . . . 660
Battle of Boxar. Return of Clive 561
Olive's second governorship of Bengal 562
Olive's reforms and foreign policy 563
The "dual system" 664
Mutiny in Bengal. Clive attacked in Parliament . . . 666
Olive's defence. His death. Misgovernment in India . . 566
Warren Hastings Governor of Bengal 667
Administration of Warren Hastings 568
Oudh and Rohillihand 569
The Rohilla War. Hastings Governor-General .... 570
Lord North's Regulating Act 671
Hastings and his Council iJ.
Trial of Nuncomar 572-3
Financial dealings of Hastings 674
War in western India 676
War in southern India. " The Nawab of Arcot's debts " . . 676
War with Haidar Ali and the French 577
Deposition of Chait Singh 578
The Begams of Oudh 579
The Council and the Supreme Court. Hastings leaves India . 680
Fox' India Bill 681
Pitt's India Act 582
Charges against Hastings 683
Impeachment and acquittal of Hastings. His character . . 684
Hastings and Burke 685
CHAPTER XVI.
ITALY AND THE PAPACY.
By Mrs H. M. Vernon.
The papal power, France and the Empire 686
Clement XI and his successors ....... ib.
Anti-papal movements in France 587
And in Naples 688
The Papacy and Sardinia. Benedict XIV 689
Policy of Benedict XIV 690
Troubles in France. The Jesuits 691
Clement XIII and the Jesuits 692-3
Clement XIV and the Jesuits 694
Fall of the Jesuits 596
Naples under Charles III 596
Tanucci. Charles King of Spain 697
Condition of Naples under Charles III 698
Economic and judicial reforms 699
Tuscany under Francis of Lorraine 600
Leopold Grand Duke of Tuscany 601
Reforms in Tuscany under Leopold 602-3
His ecclesiastical policy 604
Contents.
XXXI
His reform schemes. Policy of Venice
Internal condition of Venice
Venetian decadence. Genoa
Genoaj Sardinia^ and Austria
Corsica. King Theodore. General Paoli
Faoli's departure and return
PAGE
605
606
607
608
609
610
CHAPTER XVII.
SWITZERLAND FROM THE TREATY OF AARAU TO
THE FRENCH REVOLUTION.
By Professor J. J. Schollenbeegee, University of Zurich.
Characteristics of Swiss eighteenth century history
Switzerland and the French alliance .
The Treaty of Aarau and its effects .
Alliance between France and the Catholic cantous
French efforts for a general Swiss alliance .
Fears of Austria. Swiss general alliance with France
Proposed "Plan of Protection." Foreign service
Development of the foreign service system. Eeislaufe
Increasing evils of the system ....
Motives of foreign service
Final judgment on the system. Neutrality
Character of Swiss neutrality ....
Complaints of infringements ....
Growth of oligarchies in Switzerland .
Class revolts and conflicts. The Aufklarung
611
612
613
614
615
616
617
618
610
620
621
622
623
624
625
CHAPTER XVIII.
JOSEPH II.
By Professor Eugene Hubeet, University of Liege.
Character and training of Joseph II. His dominions
Joint regency of Maria Theresa and Joseph II .
Education and religion. Poland
Russian aggressions against Turkey. Kaunitz .
First Polish Partition Treaty. Joseph's marriage
Austrian designs on the Bavarian inheritance
War of the Bavarian Succession
Treaty of Teschen. Joseph IPs meeting with Frederick II
Treaty of Kutchuk-Kainardji
Joseph II as sole ruler. His "enlightened despotism"
Patent of Tolerance. The Religious Orders
" Febronian " influence. Seminaries of secular clergy
Judicial and penal systems. Condition of peasantry .
626
627
628
629
630
631
632
633
634
635
636
637
638
xxxu
Contents.
Financial views of Joseph II and Kaunitz .
Austria and the " Barrier Fortresses "
Belgium abandoned by the Dutch garrisons
Proposed reopening of the Scheldt
Austro-Dutch quarrel as to the Scheldt
Meaning of Joseph II's ultimatum. French mediation
The Scheldt and the Bavaro-Belgian Exchange .
Treaty of Fontainebleau. The Exchange scheme
The Austrian design and the Furstenbund
Austro-Russian war against Turkey
Revolt of the Austrian Netherlands
Religious and judicial reforms in Belgium
Opposition to the reforms .
Their partial withdrawal. Outbreak of the Belgian
Belgian Republic proclaimed. Hungary
Hungarian disturbances. Death of Joseph II. His
End of the Belgian revolt. Accession of Leopold II
His conciliatory foreign policy ....
His death
revolt
character
PAGE
639
640
641
642
643
644
645
646
647
648
ib.
649-50
650
661-2
663
664
665
656
ih.
CHAPTER XIX.
CATHARINE II.
By Dr Otto Hotzsch, Professor in the Royal
Academy, Posen.
Early life of Catharine ....
Her marriage. Value of her Memoirs
Married life of Peter and Catharine .
Alienation of Peter from Catharine. Bestnzheff
Peter III as Emperor
Murder of Peter III
Catharine II assumes the government
Prussia and the Polish question .
Antecedents of the Polish question. Courland
The Polish crisis on the death of Augustus III
Russia secures the election of Stanislaus Poniatowski
Intermixture of the Polish and Turkish questions
First Partition of Poland
Responsibility for the First Partition. Its results
Reforms under Stanislaus. The ''Delegation Diet"
Historic antagonism between Russia and Turkey
First Russo-Turkish War
Treaty of Kutchuk-Kainardji ....
Annexation of the Crimea. Catharine's Tauric tour
Austro-Russian War with Turkey. Treaty of Jassy
Catharine's policy towards Germany and the West
Catharine's foreign policy her own. Potemkin .
Court factions. Appeal to national feeling
Death of Ivan Antouovich. False claimants
Pugachoffs rising. The Succession question
667
658
659
660
661
662
663
664
665
666
667
668
669
670
671
672
673
674
676
676
677
678
679
680
681
Contents.
XXXIU
PAGE
Military and civil administration 682
Provincial administration ........ 683-4
Municipal government. The nobility 685
Codification. The Nakds 686
Representative Legislative Commission 687
End of the Commission. Its effects 688
The question of the Emancipation of the Serfs .... 689
Condition of the peasantry 690
Domestic pressure. Catharine's economic policy . . . 691
Limits of Catharine's Liberalism 692
Her ecclesiastical policy 693
Treatment of particular provinces 694
Little Russia and the Cossacks 695
Grand Duke Paul. The Tsarina's favourites .... 696
Princess Dashkoff. Eminent servants of the Crown . , . 697
Catharine II's relations with literature 608
Personality of Catharine II 699
Significance of her personality and rule 700
Results of the reign 701
CHAPTER XX.
FREDERICK THE GREAT AND HIS SUCCESSOR.
(1) HOUE AND FOBEION PoLIOT.
(1763-97.)
By Dr Emil Daniels.
Position of Frederick II after the Peace of Hubertusburg .
Frederick II's Polish schemes and designs upon Saxony
His Ansbach-Lusatian scheme
War of the Bavarian Succession .
Failure of the Prussian campaign in Bohemia
Peace of Teschen. Hertzberg
Isolation of Prussia. The Fiirstenbund
Intervention in Holland and alliance with England
Reichenbach Convention. Expansion of Prussia
Coinage and revenue .
Distribution and increase of taxation
Treatment of oflicers of the army
Of civU officials and judges
Nobility, bourgeoisie, and peasantry
Agricultural credit societies. Colonisation
Provision for immigrants. Feudal burdens on the peasantry
Corn prices regulated. Government monopolies
State tutelage and protection ....
Prohibitions and tariff wars
The Prussian Bank. General dread of paper money
Economic policy of Frederick II .
Economic advance under Frederick William II .
702
703
704
705
706
707
708
709
710
711
712
713
714
715
716
717
718
719
720
721-2
723
724
xxxiv Contents.
PAGE
Reaction against the Aufkl&rung. The Rosicrucians . . . 725
The Beligionsedict. Wollner . 726
Resistance to the Beligionsedict. The Allgemeine Landrecht . 727
Death of Frederick William II 728
(2) Poland and Prussia.
(1763-91.)
By Professor Dr Otto Hotzsch.
Prussiaj Russia, and the election of Stanislaus .... 729
Confederation of Bar. "Lynar's project" 730
Prusso-Russian alliance renewed. Partition schemes . . . 731
First Partition of Poland 732
The Prussian gains and their significance 733
Futile change in Prussia's Polish policy 734
CHAPTER XXI.
DENMARK UNDER THE BERNSTORFFS AND STRUENSEE.
By W. F. Reddaway, M.A., Fellow of King's College,
Censor of Non-Collegiate Students.
Denmark from 1730 to 1784 735
The Danish monarchy at the death of Frederick IV . . . 736
The Danish nation at the death of Frederick IV . . . 737
Christian VI. Economic policy 738
Religion and education. Frederick V 739
Moltke and the Council. The elder Bernstorff .... 740
BernstorfF and foreign affairs. The Holstein-Gottorp question . 741
The Seven Years' War. Death of Frederick V . . . , 742
Christian VII. Provisional Treaty of Exchange .... 743
The King's foreign tour. Struensee 744
Struensee and Queen Caroline Matilda. Clique and Council . 745
Fall of Bernstorff. Ascendancy of Struensee .... 746
His ideas and reforms 747-8
His unpopularity 749
Overthrow and execution of Struensee. The Queen . . . 760
Rule of Guldberg 751
Reaction in Denmark 752
The younger Bernstorff. Russian Exchange Treaty. The Duchies 753
The Russian "system." First Armed Neutrality ... ib.
Dismissal of Bernstorff 754
Fall of Guldberg. Bernstorff recalled 755
Administration of the younger Bernstorff 756
Emancipation of the peasants. The work of the Bemstorffs . 757
Contents. xxxv
CHAPTER XXII.
THE HATS AND CAPS AND GUSTAVUS HI.
(1721-92.)
By the late R. Nisbet Bain.
PAGE
Character and effects of the Swedish Constitution of 1720 . . 7S8-9
The Caps and the Hats. Ascendancy of the Hats . . 760
Peace of Abo. The Crown Prince and Princess ... 761
Death of Frederick I. Accession of Adolphus Frederick . . 762
Fersen and Pechlin 763
The "Reduction Riksdag" 764
The "Northern Accord." Resignation of Adolphus Frederick . 765
The Reaction Riksdag. Death of Adolphus Frederick . . 766
Character of Gustavus IH 767
Gustavns' first Riksdag 768
Triumph of the Caps 769
The design of Spreng^porten and Toll, 770
The Revolution of August 19, 1772 771
Constitution of 1772 772
Reforms of Gustavus III 773-6
The Riksdags of 1778 and 1786 775-6
Gradual passage to semi-absolute government .... 777
The Russian War and the Anjala Confederation . . . 778
Gustavus appeals to the Dalesmen 779
Convention of Uddevalla. The Riksdag of 1789 .... 780
Act of Union and Security ........ 781
Peace of Varala 782
Gustavus III and the French Revolution 782-4
CHAPTER XXIII.
ENGLISH POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY IN THE SEVENTEENTH
AND EIGHTEENTH CENTURIES.
By AuTHua Lionel Smith, M.A., Jowett Fellow and Tutor
of Balliol College, Oxford.
The significance of Hobbes' theory 785
Hobbes' theory of sovereignty 786
Its defects 787
Its importance 788
Its anti-sacerdotal character 789
The influence of Hobbes 790
The opposition to Hobbes 791
The method of Hobbes 792
Its results 793
The idea of Covenant 794
Milton and liberty 795
xxxvi Contents.
PAGE
Harrington's scheme 796
His critics 797
The Restoration reaction. Anti-Puritanism .... 798-9
The Whig ideas 800
Baxter's views 801
Non-Resistance 802
Divine Right. Filmer 803
Sidney 804
Sidney as precursor of Locke 805
Passive Obedience 806
Its real meaning 807
Its practical importance 808
Locke's idea of Contract 809
Government a trustee . 810
The functions of government 811
Locke's influence 812
Locke on Toleration 813
Locke and Reform 814
After Locke 815
Party government and Defoe 816
Leslie. Bolingbroke 817
The Craftsman and the Patriots 818
The patriot King. Hume 819
Hume's scepticism and insight 820
Summary : from Hobbes to Burke 821
CHAPTER XXIV.
THE ROMANTIC MOVEMENT IN EUROPEAN LITERATURE.
By C. E. Vaughan, M.A., Balliol College, Oxford, Professor
of English Literature in the University of Leeds.
The fresh current in European literature 822
Influence of Richardson 823
Influence of Rousseau 824
The First and the Second DUcours .... 825
Reawakening of the religious spirit 826
The "return to nature" 827
The "moralising" of nature . 828
The return towards the medieval spirit 829
Gray. Ossian. Percy's Meliques 830
Influence of Oesian and the Beliques 831
The Supernatural. Revival of humour 832
The realistic strain 833
The reversion to Classicism in Germany, France and England . 834
Hellenism and Romance. Speculation and politics . 835
Burke and his influence on literature 836
Conclusion 837
XXXVIl
LIST OF BIBLIOGRAPHIES.
CHAPS. PASES
I. The Hanoverian Succession .... 839 — 43
n. The Age of Walpole and the Pelhams . . 844—57
in. Jacobitism and the Union .... 858 — 63
IV, V. The Boxu:bon Governments in France and Spain
(1716-46) 864-9
VI. Financial Experiments and Colonial Develop-
ment 870—7
VII. Poland under the Saxon Kings . . . 878 — 80
Vin. The War of the Austrian Succession . . 881—6
IX. The Seven Years' War 887—8
X. Russia under Anne and Elizabeth . . . 889 — 91
XI. The Reversal of Alliances and the Family
Compact 892 — 8
XII. Spain and Portugal (1746-94) . . . 899—901
XIII. Great Britain (1756-93) 902—12
XIV. Ireland from 1700-89 913—24
XV. India 925—32
XVI. Italy and the Papacy 933—40
XVII. Switzerland from the Treaty of Aarau to the
Revolution 941 — 2
XVIII. Joseph II 943—8
XIX. Catharine 11 949—53
XX. Frederick II and his Successor . . 954 — 5
XXI. Denmark under the BernstoriFs and Struensee 956 — 9
XXII. Sweden from 1720-92 960—3
XXIII. Political Philosophy from Hobbes to Burke . 964—7
XXIV. The Romantic Movement in European Litera-
ture 968—70
Cheonological Table of Leading Events . . . 971 — 6
Index 977
xxxvm
CORRIGENDA AND ADDENDUM.
p. 224. Headline. Dele Contest and.
p. 272, 1. 21 from bottom. For which the Prince of Soubise had forced,
against his will, read which had forced the Prince of Soubise, against
his wUl,
p. 314, 1. 18. For Fredrikshamn read Fredrikshamm.
p. 316. For Mardefelt read Mardefeld.
p. 332, 1. 11. For d'Arnonville read d'Amouville.
p. 342. Headline and 1. 12. For Paris read Versailles.
p. 362, 1. 16 from bottom. For Brown read Browne.
p. 766, 1. 11, For Andrei Ivanovich read Ivan Andreivich.
p. 863, 1. 10. Add: Mackenzie, W. C. Simon Fraser, Lord Lovat: his
Life and Times. London. 1908.
CHAPTER I,
GREAT BRITAIN UNDER GEORGE I.
(1) THE HANOVERIAN SUCCESSION.
Happily for England, the Hanoverian Succession was, so far as the
predominant partner in the Union was concerned, accomplished without
bloodshed ; and, happily for the continental Powers of Europe, they were
not drawn into a direct settlement by arms of the question of the British
Succession, as they previously had been in the case of the Spanish, and
afterwards were in that of the Austrian. This result was by no means
reached as a matter of course, or in accordance with common expecta-
tion ; it was due to a combination of causes, among which not the least
effective lay in the sagacity and self-control shown by the members
of the House of Hanover in the crisis of its fortunes.
Without again going over ground covered as part of English and
European history in a previous volume, it may be convenient to note
briefly the principal phases through which the question of the Hanoverian
— or, as it may from first to last be called with perfect propriety, that
of the Protestant — Succession in England passed, before, after long
years of incubation, that Succession became, with a suddenness more
startling to contemporaries than to later observers, an accomplished
fact. This summary may furnish a suitable occasion for recalling the
personalities of those members of the Hanoverian dynasty who were
immediately concerned in the transactions preceding its actual occupation
of the English throne, and of some of the counsellors and agents with
whose aid the goal of their labours was attained. And it may be
permissible to add a word as to the antecedents of a House about whose
earlier history the English people knew little and cared less, but which
was never truer to its past than when it assumed the inheritance of a
great future.
In the critical year 1688 Sophia, the youngest daughter of the
Princess Ehzabeth of England who during the long years of her exile
continued to call herself Queen of Bohemia, was fifty-eight years of
age; she was thus senior by eight years to Louis XIV, whom accordingly
C. M. H. VI. CH. I. ^
2 The House of Guelf and its Luneburg branch. [i636-88
she was, as she says, always accustomed to regard as "a young
man." She had been married for thirty years to Ernest Augustus,
the youngest of the four brother Dukes who in their generation repre-
sented the Liineburg branch of the House of Brunswick, and whose
territories included Liineburg-Celle and Calenberg-Gottingen. In 1662
Ernest Augustus, in accordance with the alternating arrangement made
in the Peace of Westphalia, became Bishop of Osnabriick, and in 1679
he succeeded to the rule of the principality of Calenberg (Hanover). His
and Sophia's eldest son, George Lewis (afterwards King George I) was
in 1688 a man of twenty-eight years of age, to whom a son, George
Augustus (afterwards George II) and a daughter (afterwards Queen of
Prussia) had already been bom. Besides George Lewis, five younger
sons and a daughter (Sophia Charlotte, afterwards the first Queen of
Prussia) were living to Sophia and her husband in 1688. Thus her family
was numerous ; nor were her husband's prospects of territorial dominion
less promising.
The historic grandeur of the House of Guelf dates from a very
remote past ; and the laborious investigation of its antiquities which at
this very time was being commenced by Leibniz (though, so far as is
known, this was the only research conducted by him which ever engaged
the attention of the futiure George I) could have possessed only a very
academic interest for Englishmen. What had been left of the vast
possessions of Henry the Lion, or had been added to the remnant by
his descendants, had been partitioned and repartitioned by them on
innumerable occasions. Towards the end of the sixteenth century the
efforts of the Princes of the House of Guelf had raised it to a position
of importance and influence at least equal to that of any other princely
family in northern Germany; but the two main, or Brunswick and
Liineburg, branches, which had separated in the thirteenth centruy, were
never actually reunited, and even the dominions of the Liineburg branch
were never united as a single inheritance. Although of the five elder
brothers of Duke George, who in the latter part of the Thirty Years'
War so signally asserted the position of his House, four in succession
held undivided sway over the territories which formed their joint
inheritance, on his death in 1641 his will established an exception to
the principles of unity of government as well as of indivisibility of
territory formerly observed by the Liineburg Dukes. Calenberg (Han-
over), where he had ruled independently of his brothers since 1636, was
to remain separated from the more important Liineburg-Celle; while
the principle of primogeniture was only to be applied so far as to give
the eldest brother the right of choice between the two divisions. In
obedience to this rule, the eldest of Duke George's four sons. Christian
Lewis, after first holding sway at Hanover, succeeded his uncle Frederick
at Celle in 1648. On his death, without children, in 1665, the second
brother, George William, who had ruled at Hanover, succeeded to Celle,
1676-1708] Rise of the House of Hanover. 3
where he carried on the government till his own death in 1705, having
been followed at Hanover by his younger brother John Frederick
(Leibniz' Roman Catholic patron), who ruled there till he died, leaving
only two daughters, in 1679. In that year came the turn of the youngest
brother, Ernest Augustus, the Bishop of Osnabriick, Sophia's husband,
who now succeeded at Hanover, from which his line took the name
generally used in England.
But before this long-delayed rise took place in the fortunes of the
pair, a more important advance had been prepared. Ernest Augustus'
elder brother George William (who had himself been at one time
aiSanced to Sophia, then a poor Palatine princess at her brother's Court
in Heidelberg) had long since gone back from his undertaking to remain
unmarried during the lifetime of Ernest Augustus and his consort, and
thus to secure to them or their offspring the succession in Celle. In 1676
he married the daughter of a Poitevin nobleman, Eleonora d'Olbreuse,
who had already borne to him several children. Only the eldest of
these, Sophia Dorothea, who had been legitimised five years before
her mother's marriage, survived ; and the right of any issue from that
marriage to succeed to George William's inheritance during the siirvival
of any descendant of Ernest Augustus was expressly barred. But the
marriage of Sophia Dorothea to Ernest Augustus' eldest son, George
Lewis, in 1682, followed by the birth in 1683 and 1687 of the two
children already mentioned, furnished a final safeguard that the union of
Celle-Liineburg and Calenberg-Gottingen would ultimately be carried
out. And thus in 1683 the imperial sanction was obtained for the
testament " set up " by Ernest Augustus (i.e. promulgated by him in his
lifetime), which established in all the dominions of the line the twofold
principle of indivisibility and succession by primogeniture.
The marriage of George Lewis and Sophia ended in infidelity on
both sides and in a sentence of divorce (1694) ; and the rest of her life
(which lasted thirty-three years longer) was spent by the unhappy
Princess in custody at Ahlden. The proclamation of primogeniture was
bitterly resented by the younger sons of Duke Ernest Augustus, and
one of them, Prince Maximilian, contrived a plot (with some dangerous
ramifications), on the discovery of which (1691) he was exiled, and his
chief agent put to death. But the unity of the dominions of the
Brunswick-Liineburg line was now assured, and, although it was not
actually accomplished till the death of George William of Celle in 1705,
a sufficient basis had been secured for the protracted efforts of Ernest
Augustus to bring about his recognition as an Elector of the Empire.
In December, 1692, he actually obtained investiture as such from the
Emperor; but his admission into the Electoral College took sixteen
more years of negotiation ; so that it was not till 1708 that George
Lewis, who had succeeded to his father ten years before, reached this
consummation.
OH. I. 1—2
4 George William, Ernest Augustibs, and the Empire. [i648-88
The electoral investiture accorded to the House of Brunswick-
Liineburg was the avowed reward of the services which it had rendered
to the Empire and the House of Austria during the whole of the
period between the Peace of Westphalia and the crisis of 1688. In
the early part of this period the foreign policy of that House was
chiefly intent upon preventing France and Sweden from breaking through
the limits within which the Peace of Westphalia had sought to confine
them. The Triple Alliance (1668) in some measure shifted the rela-
tions between the leading European Powers ; and, for a time, the
goodwill of the Brunswick-Liineburg Dukes was solicited — and not by
means of fair words only — by both France and her adversaries. But,
in 1672, the policy of George William of Celle was, by the advice of
his Minister von Schiitz, definitively emancipated from French influence ;
and both he and his brother Ernest Augustus were now gradually gained
over to the political system devised by George Frederick of Waldeck
and adopted by William of Orange. A loyal adherence to the House
of Austria was henceforth the guiding principle of the policy consistently
pursued by the two brothers, and by Ernest Augustus' son and grandson,
both before and after the accession of the former of these to the English
throne, and was handed down by a series of trusted advisers, from the
elder Schiitz to his son-in-law Andreas Gottlieb von Bernstorff, and
from Bernstorff to Miinchhausen.
The Treaty of 1674, by which all the Brunswick-Liineburg Dukes
except John Frederick of Hanover (whose death, five years later, ended
this schism in the politics of the House) joined the coalition against
France, bound them to furnish 15,000 men, in addition to 2000
maintained at their own cost, in return for subsidies paid by the States
General, Spain and the Emperor ; and in August, 1675, the Brunswick-
Liineburgers under their Princes gained the brilliant victory of the
Bridge of Conz. They then returned home to protect the dominions
of the House against the Swedes ; but of this enemy a sufficient account
was given by the Great Elector of Brandenburg, between whose dynasty
and its Brunswick-Liineburg kinsmen relations of intimacy and of
jealousy alternated in rapid succession. When, after the Peace of
Nymegen (1679), the chief anxiety of the House of Austria was the
Turkish peril. Prince George Lewis and the Hanoverian Life-guards
rendered important service at the siege of Vienna (September, 1683), and
he and four of his brothers took an active part in several campaigns
against the Turks (the importance of which for the Empire has often
been underrated) both in Hungary, where in 1685 George Lewis par-
ticularly distinguished himself at the taking of Neuhausel, and in the
Morea; two of the Princes laid down their lives in these conflicts. When,
partly in consequence of the Imperialist successes in the East, the armies
of France invaded the Empire in the West, Celle and Hanover joined in
the Magdeburg Conference (October, 1688), and contributed to the forces
1630-88] The JElectress Sophia and her eldest son. 6
which secured the middle Rhine 8000 men under the command of Ernest
Augustus, George Lewis taking an active part in the operations.
Such was, in bare outline, what may be called the political record
of the House of Hanover at the time of the English Revolutionary
settlement of 1688-9. Curiously enough, the House which had rendered
and was prepared to render excellent service in the struggle against the
pohtical predominance of France— of which struggle the accession of
William and Mary might justly be called an incident — was in the
persons of its reigning Dukes ardently attached to French modes of life
and thought. By a combination of military discipline with an easy-
going freedom of thought they had been trained to habits of mind in
better accord with the conditions of benevolent despotism than with
those of a steady regard for constitutional rights and liberties. These
tendencies were united to a love of social dissipations of which Venice,
a favourite resort of the Brunswick-Liineburg Dukes, long remained the
most fashionable scene ; but George Lewis, though, like his father and
uncle before him, a lover of licence, was from first to last as little French
in his tastes as he was in his politics ; and his wife's French blood did
not tend to soften his antipathy to her nationality. The descendant of
the Stewarts, through whom the House of Hanover had become connected
with the royal family of England, differed entirely in her intellectual
tastes and principles of conduct from her husband and her eldest son,
but she was not less alien to the principles than they to the ideals and
usages of recent English politics. Accustomed at once to a free view
of life and to a frank and cheerful acceptance of its responsibilities,
high-spirited and courageous, but in nothing more shrewd than in her
self-knowledge, the Electress Sophia (as she was already called) was, like
her sister Elizabeth and her brother Charles Lewis, Elector Palatine, the
friend of philosophers — and at least in so far herself a philosopher that
she could shape her course according to principles transparently clear
and definite, and sufficient to enable her to meet with unbroken serenity
the varied troubles of more than fourscore years. Inasmuch as through-
out her life the question of the form of religious faith professed by
princes as well as by peoples was still a very important factor in politics,
it seems strange that neither then nor afterwards should the confessional
position of the House of Hanover have been very clearly understood
in England. The Electress Sophia (though as a child she had been
accustomed to attend the services of the Church of England at her
mother's Court) had been brought up as a Calvinist, and adhered through
life, in no half-hearted way, to that " religion " ; but the Elector and his
family were steady Lutherans. Neither in them, nor most certainly in
her, was there a trace of bigotry or intolerance ; and, while detestation of
Popery was part of her nature as well as of her training, she not only was
quite ready to do what was expected of her in the way of Protestant
conformity, but sympathised cordially with those schemes of religious
6 The Succession question under William and Mary. [i68i-96
reunion which were among the noblest aspirations of the greatest minds
of the age — of Leibniz above all.
As there was a great deal of piety in Sophia's heart, she could not
but take as she did a continuous interest both in the dynasty from which
her mother sprang and in the country with which its connexion remained
unsevered. In her girlhood there had been some passing talk of her
becoming the bride of the banished Charles II ; and, in 1681, the design
of marrying her eldest son to Princess Anne of England was approved
by William of Orange, though it does not seem to have been favoured
by Sophia herself. As it came to nothing, George Lewis was not to
anticipate Monmouth as a Protestant candidate for the English throne.
When the Revolution of 1688 was at hand, Ernest Augustus displayed
no eagerness such as was shown by most of the German Protestant
Princes, including his own elder brother and notably the Elector of
Brandenburg, to associate himself with the English project of William
of Orange; and his consort manifested sympathy with her kinsman
James II, though the statement that she supported his appeal to the
Emperor for mediation cannot be proved. At no time would she listen
to the doubts cast upon the genuineness of the birth of the Prince of
Wales. But her own position in the matter of the succession to the
English throne she neither did nor could ignore. When the Declaration
of Right, which settled the Crown, after William and Mary, upon the
posterity of Mary, then on Anne and her posterity, and then on the
posterity of William was, in 1689, turned into the Bill of Rights, the
additional proviso was inserted that no person in connexion with the
Church of Rome or married to a member of it should be capable of
inheriting or possessing the Crown. By this clause, it has been calculated,
the eventual claims to the succession of nearly threescore persons were
taken away. In the Lords, Bishop Burnet by the King's desire proposed,
and carried without opposition, an amendment naming the Duchess
Sophia and her descendants as next in the succession; but it was rejected
in the Commons, on the ground of its injustice to claimants nearer in
descent who might have become Protestants in the interval. As a
matter of fact, the birth of the Duke of Gloucester in the midst of the
discussion (July 24, 1689) removed one reason for pressing on the
amendment ; but, whatever the reason why the Government gave way,
Sophia's name was not mentioned in the Bill or in the Scottish Claim
of Rights. The whole transaction had, as she warmly acknowledged,
revealed the goodwill of King William towards the Hanoverian
Succession, and this goodwill he steadily maintained. He cannot, as
has been supposed, have seriously favoured the pretensions of the House
of Savoy-Carignan, in the absence of any assurance of a change of
religion in that quarter ; and in any case those pretensions would have
been relegated into limbo, when, in 1696, Savoy deserted the Grand
Alliance.
1689-1707] George Lewis and the English Succession. 7
In general it may be said that the policy of the House of Hanover
as to the Succession in the years which ensued was one of waiting —
patiently on the part of the Electress Sophia, and with something very
like indifference on the part of her son. Her consciousness of the
uncertainties of fortune at her time of life suffices to account for her
tranquillity; George Lewis never cared to conceal his dislike of the
possibilities before him, though he would at any time have made it
give way to his sense of duty towards his dynasty. The English
throne seemed to many of his contemporaries the most uncertain of
royal seats, and the English nation the very exemplar of mutability.
Though a British envoy extraordinary was from 1689 accredited to
Hanover and Celle among other north German Courts, that of Hanover
was during the last decade of the century almost absorbed in its own
intimate troubles and immediate ambitions. The electoral dignity,
which as has been seen was not acknowledged by the Electors of the
Empire at large before two of them — Saxony and Brandenburg — had
each compassed a royal crown, had been secured from the Emperor
by means of the Kurtractat of 1692, by which the new Elector under-
took to furnish a force of 6000 men for service against the Turks, and,
should this be no longer required, against the French, as well as to
support the Habsburg interest both in coming imperial elections and
in the matter of the Spanish Succession. It may be truly said that
George Lewis was as cordially interested in what his dynasty gave as in
what it took ; and even the additional importance which the prospect
of the English Succession gave to his House he would seem to have
chiefly valued because it enabled him to take a prominent part in military
operations. After he had succeeded his father at Hanover in 1698, not
only did he and his uncle at Celle join the Grand Alliance reknit by
William III, but they obliged their kinsmen at Wolfenbiittel to throw
up their alliance with France. When the War of the Spanish Succession
broke out, Hanover and Celle placed under Marlborough's command
more than 10,000 troops, which fought with distinction at Blenheim
and elsewhere, though (as the Electress Sophia complained) no notice
was taken of them in the gazettes; and, after George Lewis had (in 1705)
become ruler of the entire dominions of his House, he asserted himself
by strongly opposing the first suggestions of a pacification (1706); and
his most cherished ambition was fulfilled when (1707) he was appointed
to the command of the army of the Rhine. It was his misfortune, not
his fault, that in this position he was unable to accomplish any military
results of much importance.
Meanwhile, in England the death of Queen Mary (1694) could hardly
fail to bring the Succession question forward again. In 1696, the
Brandenburg scheme of a marriage between Princess Louisa Dorothea
and King William III had come to nothing; and, in 1698, he paid a
visit to Celle and its neighbourhood, during which his conversations with
8 The Electress Sophia and the Act of Succession. [i698-i7oi
the (now Dowager) Electress Sophia and her clever sister-in-law at Celle
beyond a doubt revived his interest in the Hanoverian Succession. But
neither he nor English politicians had just then much time to occupy
themselves with the question, which only became one of general interest
when the death of the young Duke of Gloucester (August 7, 1700)
left no life between the Electress Sophia and the throne but that of
Queen Anne herself.
In the course of the autumn the Electress Sophia paid a visit to
King William at the Loo, in which she was accompanied by her
daughter the Electress of Brandenburg and her grandson the young
Electoral Prince (afterwards King Frederick William I of Prussia).
Curiously enough, the idea seems to have crossed King William's mind
of placing this young Prince (whose father had claims upon the King's
own inheritance as Prince of Orange) in the position left vacant by the
Duke of Gloucester — though, as is pointed out by Onslow, he never had
it in his power to nominate any one to the English throne ; and the
Brandenburg (soon to become the Prussian) Court wsis quite awake to
what, as it seemed, might happen. So late as 1699 the Elector
Frederick Ill's sagacious Minister Fuchs was pressing his master "to aim
at the English throne." The episode is curious ; but there is no reason
for assuming, either that a letter written by the Electress Sophia to
Stepney shortly before her visit to the Loo was really " Jacobite " in
intention, or that at their meeting the Electress, by opposing the wishes
of WiUiam III, led him to turn his thoughts to the rival electoral House.
Already in January, 1701, it was known that a new Act of Settle-
ment would be proposed by the Crown to Parliament, in which the
Electress Sophia and her descendants would be named ; and, notwith-
standing the rumours of intrigues in which Marlborough was believed to
be involved, an excessive display of zeal on the part of the indefatigable
Leibniz, and a protest on behalf of Duchess Anna Maria of Savoy, the
Act which in default of issue of the Princess Anne or King WiUiam
settled the English Crown upon "the most excellent Princess Sophia and
the heirs of her body, being Protestants," on June 12, 1701, received the
royal assent. On August 14, the Earl of Macclesfield, with the voluble
Toland in his train, arrived at Hanover, to present a copy of the Act of
Succession to the Electress, and to bring the Garter to the Elector.
They were treated with much honour, but more significant is the fact,
long concealed, that the Committee of the Calenberg Estates secretly
furnished the Hanoverian legation in London with a sum of 300,000
dollars for any unforeseen emergency. At an interview which King
William immediately afterwards had at the Loo with George William of
Celle, he promised to try to obtain an annual income for the Electress
from Parliament, and to invite her and the Electoral Prince to England
in the coming spring.
That spring William III never saw, and during the whole of his
1701-3] The Grand Alliance.
successor's reign no part of the obviously appropriate arrangement
suggested by him was carried out. In the last days of August, 1701,
the new Grand Alliance against France was concluded ; and a few days
later, by the deathbed of King James II, his son was recognised by
Louis XIV as successor to the English Crown. The " indignity " (the
word is Bentley's) filled all England with wrath ; and, beyond all doubt,
the magnanimous action of Louis XIV helped to bring about, if it did
not actually cause, the insertion in the final form of the instrument of
the Grand Alliance a provision binding the contracting Powers not to
conclude peace with France until the King of England should have
received satisfaction for the grave insult implied in the recognition by
the King of France of the " pretended Prince of Wales " as his father's
successor on the English throne. The War of the Spanish Succession
thus, in a sense, became a war of the English Succession also; and,
though during its earlier years the victories of the Allies added, as it
has been happily expressed, a guarantee of their own, no sooner were
conditions of peace under discussion than this clause could not but again
come to the front. Those interested in the Hanoverian Succession could
then hardly fail to ask themselves in what way it would be advanced —
or peradventure endangered — by the conditions proposed for the peace
itself. Meanwhile, in January, 1702, was passed, together with an Act
attainting the Pretender, the Abjuration Act, which made it obligatory
to abjure him and to swear fidelity to the King and his heirs according
to the Act of Settlement. Somewhat ominously, the clause making this
oath obligatory was carried in the Commons only by a single vote.
Shortly afterwards (March 8) King William died ; and a period, in
some respects obscure, began in the history of the Hanoverian Succession,
which extended over thirteen further weary years. But this obscurity
was due neither to the conduct of the heiress presumptive of the English
throne nor to that of her son. The Electress Sophia continued to
remain true to herself and to the line of conduct which her judgment
had marked out for her, in her conduct towards the English Crown and
Parliament, and in her daily intercourse with friends and well-wishers,
sincere or insincere. Occasionally her tranquil interest in a drama of
which she scarcely expected to see the denouement was quickened into
some measure of precaution, as when (in June, 1703) she signed three
forms for the Hanoverian envoy extraordinary in London (Baron
Ludwig Justus von Schiitz), authorising him to claim the throne on her
behalf in the event of the Queen's death; but, while she at no time
concealed her conviction as to what would be the appropriate way of
recognising her position, she made no demand, and still less allowed
herself to be seduced into manoeuvres or intrigues with any English party
or individual politician. Her eldest son only gradually, and never quite
completely, suppressed his reluctance to move in the matter ; but, while
plainly resolved to do nothing prematurely, he was as a matter of duty
10 Bernstorff. — Queen Anne and the Succession. [1705-20
towards the interests of his House and of the Empire resolved to use all
due means of preparing and, when the time came, of asserting a claim
not of his own seeking, but now interwoven with the whole political
situation of Europe in which he had become an important factor. That
he now saw matters in this way was largely due to Andreas Gottlieb von
Bernstorff, since 1705 (on the death of George William of Celle, whose
affairs he had directed for more than a quarter of a century) George
Lewis' chief political adviser (with the title of Prime Minister from 1709),
and his confidential adviser long after the Elector's accession to the
English throne, until his own political downfall in 1720. BemstoriTs
training was that of a territorial or particularist statesman ; and in the
earlier part of his career his jealousy of the Danish and more especially
of the Brandenburg Government seemed to be the guiding principle of his
policy. These tendencies, and his personal connexion with Mecklenburg,
he never forgot or repressed; but he had a great grasp of affairs as well as
singular acuteness of insight ; and the charges of venality brought against
him were largely if not wholly attributable to spite. Of the policy
which he in a great measure inspired more will be said hereafter.
The darkness in which the progress of the Succession question
in these years is shrouded is, of course, mainly caused by the insincere
and tortuous conduct of Queen Anne, her Ministers and the political
parties out of whose jealousies and ambitions the inner history of the
reign evolved itself. Their proceedings, and the motives by which they
must be concluded to have been actuated, have been discussed, in their
relation to the fallen Stewarts and to the general progress of affairs in
other passages of this work ; here it only remains to note their direct
bearing upon the Succession which according to Act of Parliament was to
follow, should the Queen die without leaving any descendants of her own.
Queen Anne — ^no longer hopeful of issue, and from October, 1708,
a widow — very naturally felt a certain measure of sympathy for her
half-brother as to the genuineness of whose birth she had at first been
so demonstratively sceptical. But the really dominant motive of her
behaviour (a few unavoidable civilities apart) in the matter of the
Hanoverian Succession, was a deep, not to say a superstitious, aversion
from the whole topic and its associations. In the earlier years of her
reign she did nothing in recognition of the " Princess Sophia's " claims
beyond ordering the insertion of her name in the liturgy. She would
at no time hear of carrying out King William's intention of inviting the
Electress Sophia and the Electoral Prince to England, or grant a specific
title to the former ; nor would she approve of an annual income for the
heiress to the Crown sanctioned by Parliament. Sophia on the other
hand declined to entertain the idea of a private allowance from the Civil
List, which would merely oblige her to surround herself with expensive
English servants. The Electoral Prince was created Duke of Cambridge,
and Knight of the Garter like his father — and that was all. Coolness
1704-10] Waiting policy of' the House of Hanover. 11
thus came to be returned for coolness ; and it was only in the last four
years of the Queen's reign that the relations between her and the old
Electress assumed a friendlier aspect — till at last the explosion came.
With the English political leaders and factions the Electress and,
till nearly the last, her son forbore from entering into intimate relations.
To Marlborough they were alike attracted, and he was always ready
with judicious advice ; but he was not the man to mortgage his future
by identifying himself with either side, more especially so long as he was
the first man in the State and controlled the action of the Queen. But
on the other side there was equal caution. At what date he offered
to the House of Hanover a loan of £20,000, in return for a blank
commission signed by the Electress confirming him in the command of
both army and navy, is uncertain ; on the other hand, when in 1710 it
was expected that the new Ministers proposed to offer the chief command
in the field to George Lewis in Marlborough's place, the Elector had,
notwithstanding his military ambition, made up his mind to decline it.
Godolphin was less accessible ; he was always suspected of partiality for
the House of Stewart, with which he is known to have been in communi-
cation ; and for the royal assent to the Scottish Act of Security (1704<),
which seriously endangered the Hanoverian Succession beyond the Border,
he was mainly responsible. The Whigs proper could not but consis-
tently maintain the principle of the Hanoverian Succession except in
a moment of factious aberration (Sophia said that they would always be
for it " so long as it suited their purpose ") ; but it was not tUl a dis-
continuance of the War became an integral part of the Ministerial policy
that the Elector began to take special thought of securing the support
of the party in the matter of the Succession. To the Tories — whether
or not of the so-called "Hanover" section which upheld the Succession —
the behaviour of both the Electress and the Elector always remained
frank and courteous ; and even the duplicity of the game played, first
by Oxford and then more persistently and for a time more audaciously
by Bolingbroke, though perfectly well known to Sophia and to her son,
was met by them with an unrufiled front.
Thus, the main incidents in the history of the Succession in Queen
Anne's reign may be very rapidly reviewed. In 1704-5, when party
relations in England were much confused, and Buckingham and Rochester
were in correspondence with the Electress Sophia, the "High-flier" section
of the Tories, headed by Rochester, sought to assert their power by means
of an address urging that the Electress should be invited to take up
her residence in England. The address was thrown out in the Lords
(November, 1705), the Whigs voting against it; but their leaders
adroitly seized the occasion to introduce two Bills, which signified a
real step forward in the interests of the Hanoverian Succession — the
Naturalisation Bill, which made an Englishwoman of the heiress to the
throne, and the Regency Bill, which empowered her to appoint twenty-one
12 The parties and the Succession. — Bothmer. [i70»-ii
Lords Justices, who, in addition to the great officers of the Crown,
were to carry on the government of the country in the event of her
absence from it at the time of the Queen's death. The Earl of Halifax
was appointed to announce the passing of these Bills at Hanover ; but
it cannot have been very agreeable to his personal feelings that the
Electress struck his name with six others out of the list submitted to
her, or acceptable to his Whig principles that she insisted to him on the
hereditary character of her right to the throne.
In 1708, when the death of Prince George of Denmark had removed
the last possibility of further issue from the Queen, the Whigs were fully
established in power ; but the Electress was by no means thrown off her
balance by the enthusiasm of her Whig visitors at Herrenhausen, and
the Elector was much out of humour at the lack of confidence shown
to him in connexion with the conduct of the War. But a more critical
period soon drew near, and it was not without reason that the Elector
went out of his way to remonstrate with Queen Anne on the Ministerial
changes reported as imminent in the early part of 1710. After these
changes had been actually accomplished. Earl Rivers was sent to Hanover
by the Queen to explain her view of them, and made a favourable
impression. In December the Electoral Prince was installed Knight of
the Garter by proxy — somewhat tardily, as he had been invested with the
insignia of the Order some four years earlier. In 1710 — a few months
before, in May, 1711, Harley became Lord Treasurer with the title of
Earl of Oxford — Hans Caspar von Bothmer, Hanoverian Minister pleni-
potentiary at the Hague, arrived at the Court of St James, to take the
place of the envoy Schiitz (who had died in the previous February).
Bothmer, who was more directly and effectively instrumental than any
other man in bringing about the Hanoverian Succession, had, like
Bernstorff, been originally in the service of George William of Celle, and
had when Minister at the imperial Court been sent as a plenipotentiary
to the Peace of Ryswyk. He had acquired the complete confidence of
the electoral family and of the Electress Sophia in particular, whose
letters show her appreciation of his great ability, except as the executant
of feminine commissions. He had been active in the electoral interest
already at the Hague whither he returned for part of 1711; and both
here and in London, which he again quitted for a time to act as pleni-
■potentiary at Utrecht, he laboured incessantly in the main task of his life.
He failed indeed to secure the goodwill of the Queen, to whom his very
presence was a memento of the future to which she desired to shut her
eyes, or of her Ministers — Bolingbroke declared that, notwithstanding his
air of coldness and caution, he was " the most inveterate party-man " of
his day — but he was praised by the Electress for being on friendly terms
with both parties, without compromising himself with either. His
management of the funds placed at his disposal appears to have been
discreet and well-proportioned; some peers were to be had cheap. When
ivn-32] The Succession and the Peace. 13
the crisis came, he rose to the full height of the situation, and for a
moment commanded it, assuming even such a responsibility as that of the
destruction of the Queen's private little packet of papers. When all was
happily over, and his services had been acknowledged by his being made
a Count of the Empire, he remained for some time in active service,
retaining his post of the Elector's Minister to the Cornet where the Elector
was now King. But as the influence of BernstorfF rose to its height that
of Bothmer, whose views began to diverge from his, waned, and he
supported Stanhope against BernstorfF in some of the transactions which
preceded the fall of the latter in 1720 — a fact which shows the term
"Hanoverian Junta" to be hardly more accurate than the expression
"Stanhope's German Ministry." Bothmer died in 1732, leaving large
estates in Mecklenburg.
Bothmer had made it clear from the first that in matters of European
policy, and in the question of war or peace with France in particular,
his master was by no means disposed to fall in tamely with the system of
the Queen and her Ministers. Already, when, in the autumn of 1711,
Rivers paid a second visit to Hanover, and his customary assurances of
the Queen's benevolent intentions were met by the Electress with the
observation that it seemed to her quite natural that " the Queen should
be more in favour of her brother than of us," the real object of his
mission broke down on the Elector's steady refusal to declare himself in
favour of the British overtures of peace to France. In November, 1711,
Bothmer, who had returned to London with fresh credentials, brought
with him a memorandum against the conclusion of peace which in
England was ascribed to Whig influence, but which as a matter of fact
developed principles of action of far more importance to the Elector than
the interests of any English party-principles, and from his point of view
dominating the question of the Succession itself. Both sides were now
competing for the goodwill of the electoral House. When, in January,
1712, the Whigs through the Duke of Devonshire proposed to give the
Duke of Cambridge precedence over other peers, the Ministry at once
overbid them by rapidly carrying an Act securing precedence to the
entire electoral family. Oxford sent his kinsman Thomas Harley to
Hanover to present a copy of this Act, and to utilise the opportunity for
laying, if possible, the belligerent spirit which possessed the Elector.
But Bothmer still pressed his master's point of view, presenting a letter
from him to the Queen on February 14.
At Utrecht, whither Bothmer soon repaired to watch the progress of
the peace negotiations, the policy of the Elector was in many respects
deliberately calculated to thwart that of the English Ministry. More
significant, however, than even his wish to continue the Dutch Barrier
Treaty and to promote a good understanding between the Dutch and
imperial Governments, was the order given by him to General von
Biilow, the commander of his contingent in the Low Countries, to pass
14 Intrigues of Oxford and BoUngbroke. [1712-3
from under the command of Ormond, Marlborough's successor, and to
unite with the imperial troops under Prince Eugene, on the day on
which Ormond should conclude a truce with the French (July). There
was no difference of opinion as to the mention in the Treaty of Peace of
the Hanoverian Succession ; but the addition, suggested by Leibniz, of a
clause securing to the Elector and one or more members of his family a
residence and annual income in England, was never seriously entertained.
As an Estate of the Empire the Elector of course withheld his signature
from the Peace.
After Bothmer's recall Baron Thomas von Grote, who belonged
to a family distinguished in the service of the Elector's House, was
sent to London (December, 1712). His instructions were drawn up by
Jean de Robethon, a Hanoverian official of French Huguenot descent,
who has been justly described as the very soul of George I's diplomatic
chancery, and who continued in favour so long as Bemstorff main-
tained his ascendancy in the counsels of his Prince. Grote carried with
him, besides elaborate instructions from both Elector and Electress,
lists of the best friends of the House of Hanover in England, most
of whom were Whigs ; but he was also told to make friends with
the clergy. He found no opportunity of urging the establishment for
the Electress, the provision of which would have furnished the best
proof of the sincerity of the Queen's and Oxford's professions, and in
February, 1713, sent home to Hanover a very gloomy account of the
situation. The hopes of the friends of the Succession in England were,
for reasons which it is not very easy to assign, once more sinking. It
is idle to ascribe the fact to the "unpopularity" of a House practically
unknown to all but a few English men and women. The Electress had
offended nobody, and, so long as the War had continued, the Elector
had been a faithful and a zealous ally. Bat it was the time when both
Oxford and Bolingbroke, whose mutual rivalry was becoming more
intense, were seeking to intrigue with Berwick and the Jacobites at
Paris, and trying to accommodate their attitude at home to the wishes
of the Queen, which seemed by no means to point towards Hanover;
Bolingbroke not only going further than Oxford in his overtures to the
Jacobites, but occasionally treating the Elector's envoy with insolent
brusqueness. In March, 1713, Grote died; and in the same month
Oxford, who could never continue long without trimming, appears to have
sent his useful kinsman to make the customary meaningless declarations
at Hanover. The Whigs were anxious that the Elector should force the
situation, and at the same time exercise an influence upon the elections
that were to follow on the dissolution of Parliament in July, by sending
over a member of his family, preferably the Electoral Prince, who in the
new Parliament would as a matter of course take his seat in the Lords.
Bothmer favoured the step, but Bernstorfi' was unluckily ill, and in his
absence the Elector decided against sending his son — whom for reasons
1713-4] The situation grows critical. 15
which have been guessed but cannot be determined he cordially detested.
Thus, though Parliament was duly dissolved in July — the Queen in her
closing speech ominously omitting the usual friendly reference to the
Hanoverian Succession — nothing was done ; while the Whigs were so
enraged at the conduct of the Ministry as to be ready to tamper with
the Union with Scotland, provided nothing else could be done to secure
the Hanoverian Succession in that kingdom. Thus matters stood,
when in September, 1713, Baron Georg Wilhelm Helvig von Schiitz
(a nephew of BemstorfiF) arrived in London as Hanoverian envoy. It
may be noted that he was expressly instructed to abstain from any
sort of interference in British affairs.
The new Parliament assembled (February, 1714) without either any
representative of the Hanoverian family, or (as Berwick had suggested)
the Pretender, putting in an appearance. But the situation had become
more strained than ever, more especially when, in the last days of 171S,
the Queen had fallen ill. Had things then come to a crisis, it would,
owing to the great age of the Electress, and the unwillingness of the
Elector to take a step in advance, have found the Whigs and the friends
of the Succession at large ill prepared to meet it. Their best security
lay in the fact of Oxford and Bolingbroke's perfectly clear perception
that, while it would at any time have been impossible to persuade the
Queen to summon the Pretender to London, it woidd have been madness
to bring him into England from Scotland; and that, so long as he
refused to cease to be a Roman Catholic, he had no chance of the English
throne. On the other hand, Bolingbroke was convinced that a German
Prince such as George Lewis could never permanently occupy the English
throne. But, now that the chance had gone by, Oxford lost himself in
renewed duplicities which revealed only too clearly his uncertainty of
mind. At one moment, he proposed to alter the Regency Act, so as
to give to the Electress Sophia the nomination of the entire body of
Regents — ^which would have enabled Parliament, if so disposed, to rescind
the Act altogether. At another, he invited Parliament to declare it
treasonable to introduce foreign troops into the country — a prohibition
which might have been worked either against the Pretender or against
the House of Hanover. Thus the feeling that Ministers were allowing
things to drift — possibly into disturbance and civil war — operated in
favour of the only interest in which there was certainty of purpose ; and
in the early months of 1714 Tories as well as Whigs, clergy as well as
laity, began to lay themselves at the feet of the electoral House. Though
in the new House of Commons the Tories outnumbered the Whigs by at
least two to one, a large section of the former party, the so-called " Hanover
Tories," had made up their minds in favour of the Protestant Succession.
In April, Oxford himself thought it well to make another of his "hedging"
movements; and Thomas Harley appeared at Hanover once more, with a
bland enquiry on the part of the Queen as to whether anything could be
16 The Electoral Prince's writ. [1714
done to further the Hanover Succession, arid the old offer of a private
pension for the Electress ; but without a word as to a member of the
electoral family coming to England. Harley brought back with him a
reply, dated May 7, pointing out the desirableness of a parliamentary
income for the Electress, and of the sojourn in England of a member of
the electoral family (the Electoral Prince being probably intended).
In the meantime it became known that the action of the Elector's
Minister in London had with quite unexpected suddenness transformed
the situation. In the ordinary course of things the Electoral Prince
would as Duke of Cambridge have received his writ of summons to
attend the House of Lords like any other English peer; but Lord
Chancellor Harcourt, being like his Ministerial colleagues afraid of
nothing so much as of offending the Queen, had indefinitely delayed its
issue. Schiitz had become very uneasy, when he received a letter from
the old Electress requesting him to inform the Lord Chancellor of the
great astonishment at Hanover caused by the fact that the writ had not
yet been sent to the Prince. " As he (the Lord Chancellor) has always
been friendly to me. . .1 think that he will not consider it objectionable
que vous le lui demandiez et la raison.''^ Schiitz could hardly conclude
otherwise than that he was desired to demand the writ as well as the
reason for its having been withheld ; and the Whig leaders, to, whom he
showed the Electress' letter, took the same view. He therefore asked for
the writ from the Lord Chancellor, who replied that it was quite ready,
but that, the custom not being for peers to demand their writs except
when present in London, he would mention the matter to the Queen.
When, on April 26, Schiitz made it known that he had carried out
the instructions of the Electress, the effect was electrical. Marlborough,
Townshend, and Cadogan expressed their delight at the envoy's action ;
Bothmer wrote from the Hague in the same strain; and at Hanover,
where Leibniz' exultation was imbounded, it was thought that the
opportunity should be seized, and the Electoral Prince sent to London
at once. But the Elector demurred — most fortunately, for Queen Anne
was deeply angered at the action of his envoy. At first she was for
refusing the writ, and Bolingbroke dared to be of the same opinion.
But the Cabinet decided that the demand could not be refused, and on
April 27 the writ was handed to Schiitz by the Chancellor. The envoy
was, however, speedily advised by Oxford not to show himself at Court,
and was soon formally prohibited from appearing there. On May 2 he
took his departure, leaving the Resident, Kreyenberg, to carry on diplo-
matic business. On Schiitz' arrival at Hanover the Elector, in pretended
displeasure, refused to receive him, and told Thomas Harley who was on
the eve of returning to London that the envoy had acted without orders
from his sovereign.
The Elector and his mother, had they really been afraid of any
action on the part of the Queen, would not have despatched to her by
1714] Death of the Electress Sophia. 17
Thomas Harley the very outspoken memorandum of May 7 mentioned
above ; and the Electress' account of the whole matter to Leibniz was
perfectly cool. But the letters in which Queen Anne — or Bolingbroke,
who held her pen — expressed her annoyance to the Electress, the Elector,
and the Electoral Prince, were — especially the first-named — couched in
terms of intolei-able arrogance and violent menace. When they were,
with the exception of the letter to the Elector, surreptitiously published
by a Whig scribe (whom Bolingbroke immediately clapped into prison)
the mistake made by the Queen was at once patent ; and Oxford seems
at once to have ceased intriguing for the Stewart cause and to have
begim protesting at Hanover. Bolingbroke could think of nothing
better than to seek to implicate his rival in the demand for the writ.
But the Queen's letters had another effect. They arrived at Hanover
on June 5, and on the 6th the missive to the Electress Sophia was
delivered to her at Herrenhausen. On the evening of the 8th, when
walking in her beloved gardens, she was suddenly overtaken by death.
Since the arrival of the letters, she had never lost her self-control or
even her high spirit; but the shock had been too severe for her aged
frame. On her death the !^lector at once took the threads of the
conjuncture into his own hands, addressing a conciliatory letter to the
Queen and once more sending over Bothmer, furnished with full instruc-
tions for the event of her death. Whatever secret orders Bothmer may
have had for his dealings with the Whigs, he was told to avoid aU
appearance of partisanship and took with him a letter to Oxford,
insisting on the advisability of the presence in England of a member of
the electoral family. On the part of Queen Anne, however, her relative
the Tory Earl of Clarendon was sent over to Hanover with instructions
to place a negative upon the proposals of the memorandum of May 7.
The events which now took place in England have already been
narrated in this History. No sooner had Oxford been dismissed from
office (July 27) than he at once offered Bothmer to keep him confidentially
au courant with Bolingbroke's proceedings. Yet the Elector was of
covu'se completely in the dark as to whether Bolingbroke, at last in
possession of full power, intended in the event of the Queen's death to
risk a coup d'itat on his own account or to ask for the aid which
Louis XIV had promised to give. The Elector was determined at least
not to be taken by surprise. He promptly caused a fresh instrument of
Regency, comprising his own nominations, to be prepared (Marlborough's
name being left out from thisj whether or not only because he happened
not to be in England) ; while at home he received assurances of support
from his nephew Frederick William I of Prussia and other German
Princes. With the Whig project of an outbreak during the Queen's
life the Elector had no concern.
Then came the startling news of Queen Anne's illness, and of her
death. The Elector's commission of Regents (in which 13 of his 18
c. M. H. yi. CB. I. 2
18 Death of Queen Anne. — Accession of George I. [1714-5
nominations were Whigs) was opened, and he was proclaimed King
on the day of the Queen's death (August 1) in London, and again a few
days later there as well as in Edinbiu-gh and Dublin. King George I,
who received the news informally on August 6, and formally three' days
later, though he kept up a correspondence with Bothmer, gave no sign
of his intentions as to English affairs before leaving Hanoven But
Bolingbroke was dismissed from office. To wnshend taking his place on
the day of the King's departure (August 31). After spending a fort-
night at the Hague, George I arrived at Greenwich on September 18,
and two days later held his entry into London. It was now made quite
manifest that he had elected to break completely with the late Queen's
Government. He took no notice of Ormond or Harcourt on landing;
and, when next morning Oxford (who during the Queen's fatal illness
had been at the pains of sending an express messenger to summon the
Elector immediately to London) kissed hands, he was received in silence.
Bolingbroke, though as yet he kept a bold front, had absented himself
on both occasions. His day was over. The King's action was confirmed
by the elections for the new Parliament, which assembled on March 15,
1715, and in which the Whigs commanded a large English majority,
while of the Scottish seats the Jacobites, then on the eve of a rising,
had only been able to secure an insignificant fraction.
Bothmer's vigilance and the Elector's self-contained but intrepid
conduct had triumphed; but Fortune had had her hand in the game.
The Queen's illness had taken Bolingbroke by surprise, though not in
the sense that he would in any case have joined with the Hotspurs of
his party in proclaiming the Pretender. And the rapid close of that
illness in death had prevented the Elector from responding to Oxford's
summons, as, there is reason to think, he might have done in apprehension
of immediate Jacobite action. Had he come while Queen Anne lived,
tumult and bloodshed might have followed; and, though resolute in
action, George might not have proved the man to conjure the furies of
civil discord — perhaps of civil war. For the nation's trust in the new
dynasty was still a thing of the future ; and the consensus of all but the
extreme factions in Church and State to accept it was no guarantee that
this acceptance would prove enduring. Had the Electress Sophia, the
heiress presumptive of the British throne during so many years, been
called to it in her earlier days, she might conceivably have attained to
something of the popularity which has surrounded more than one
English female sovereign ; for none of our Queens has surpassed her in
intellectual clearness and courage, in geniality of disposition, and in
loyalty of soul. But in her son, who mounted the throne in her stead,
there was little to attract, though there was much to command respect ;
for he was cast in a manly mould, and veracity and trustworthiness
were inborn in his nature. He had given abundant proof of military
ability and courage, and he was fond of the pastimes which in his day
1714-27] Character and surroimdings of George I, 19
commended themselves to his class. On the other hand, he was too old
to shake oiF the absolutist habits of thought and conduct which had
long become incompatible with ; the conditions of English political life ;
and he was wholly devoid of literary or scientific tastes-^-quite the last
man to have considered that the union of Great Britain and Hanover
represented in his person was "the union of Leibniz with Newton."
Fortunately for the King's fame, he took Handel again into favour
(out of which he had fallen for doing honour to the, Peace of Utrecht, or
for some other reason) almost immediately after his accession to the
English throne. For the rest, it is well known that, while his mother
spoke English as well as Dutch with perfect ease, the new King of England
never acquired the English tongue; in return it is doubtful whether
more than one of the leading English statesmen of his reign could speak
to him in his own language. It may have been partly due to George I's
ignorance of the English tongue that he dropped the habit of presiding
at Cabinet Council meetings (though, of course, continuing to preside at
Privy Councils) — and that, as was unavoidable, he resorted instead to
private consultations with advisers whom he could uniformly understand,
and who could understand him in return.
George I, unhappily, brought no consort to England, and the cloud
of scandal which enveloped the story of his past married life did him
much harm with many besides his son, with whom he was ostensibly on
better terms since the death of the old Electress. The Prince of Wales
resembled his father in his military ambition and absolutist convictions ;
but to him as a younger man wider hopes attached themselves, and to
the intelligence and charm of his Princess prejudice alone could fail to
succumb. Instead of a wife, the King brought with him a mistress, in
accordance with the almost imperative fashion of the day. The legend
that Countess Melusina von der Schulenburg (afterwards Duchess of
Kendal) had a rival in Baroness Sophia Charlotte von Kielmannsegge
(afterwards Countess of Darlington), the daughter of Countess von
Platen, who had been the mistress of King George's father, Ernest
Augustus, can be traced back to the malicious pen of the Margi-avine
Wilhelmina of Baireuth; as a matter of fact George I acknowledged
and honoured his half-sister as such. For the rest, though the style of
the Hanoverian Court, magnificent under Ernest Augustus and Sophia,
had become less ceremonious and restrained under George Lewis, it had
not much to learn in the way of refinement from that of St James.
Of the political counsellors who accompanied George I to England,
or whom, like Bothmer, he found awaiting him there, something has
already been said ; and of their advice and its effects note will be taken
in another section. Possessed as they were of their Prince's well-earned
confidence, the continuance of their influence depended on himself alone,
and on his and their power of shaping in new conditions the foreign
policy of which he would never change the main purposes, and of which
nil. I. 2 — 2
20 George I's Hanoverian counsellors. [1714-27
bis succession to the throne of Great Britain had always seemed nothing
more than an important incident. With Bemstorff and Robethon, no
other Hanoverian councillors of much mark came to England. Baron
Friedrich Wilhelm von Schlitz-Gortz, who was in the Elector's suite and
bore the reputation of a grand seigneur as well as of a valuable official,
returned to Hanover as head of the electoral Chamber of Finance.
Jobst Hermann von Ilten, under both Ernest Augustus and George
Lewis one of the most capable servants of the electoral Government,
remained behind to preside over it at Hanover, where he died in
1730. Among other trusted followers of the King were Baron von
Kielmannsegge, whose Mastership of the Horse gave much offence in
England ; and Privy Councillor Johann Ludwig von Fabrice (a son of
Weipart Ludwig, whoi held a high judicial office at Celle) — it was either
in his arms, or, more probably, in those of his brother, Chamberlain
Friedrich Ernst, that George I died. In the course of the reign, Philip
von Hattorf, a man of great ability and tact, was Hanoverian Minister
in attendance — an office which soon became one of high importance.
No account can be given here of the adjustments made on the acces-
sion of George I between the administrative systems of his kingdom and
his electorate ; but it is worth pointing out that the Hanoverian Chancery
in London was at no time a bra,nch of the Foreign Office, but always
concerned with purely Hanoverian business. For the rest, the pro-
hibitory clause of the Act of Settlement as to the employment of
foreigners in civil or military offices, and as to the granting of pensions
to them, was observed in the spirit as well as in the letter ; and while it
is not easy to find even isolated cases in which Germans were admitted
under George I into the service of the British Administration, the very
few pensions granted to others than Englishmen or Englishwomen were
of a wholly exceptional nature.
The title of the new dynasty was (notwithstanding what the Electress
Sophia thought) parliamentary in its essence as well as in its basis, and
therefore implied the assurance of a rule which, if only for the sake of
the rulers, might be, whatever their own traditions, depended on to
respect the principles and the practice of parliamentary government.
But the Succession was not merely an incident in the conflict of English
political parties. It was something more, and as such of vital import-
ance to the national life and history. The Hanoverian was the Protestant
Succession, both by Act of Parliament and by the whole history of the
process of its accomplishment. The House of Hanover as represented
by the Elector had adhered staunchly to the Protestant traditions of
both his father's and his mother's line, while many of the members of
both had fallen away from them. The attempt made in England both
before and after the accession of George I to depreciate, as it were, the
quality of Hanoverian Protestantism, by emphasising or exaggerating
differences between it and that of the Church of England, had to be met
1714-21] Church affairs. — Foreign policy. 21
by a great deal of unavoidable argument. But, if it took time to
convince the beneficiaries of the Schism Act, that the Tories — and the
Jacobite Tories in particular — could claim no monopoly in the protec-
tion of the rights of the Protestant Church of England, on the other
hand the goodwill of the English Nonconformist body was very effectually
assured to the Hanoverian dynasty ; and their attachment was won
for a sovereign who approved, and with the traditions and principles
implanted in him could not but approve, the proposed abrogation of
the Test and Corporation Acts. Elsewhere it will be shown that in
Scotland the results of the Succession were on this head even more
complete; for with the rising of 1715 episcopalian Jacobitism ceased
to have any significance as a political force. But in England, without
the drawing of a sword from its scabbard, the will of the nation had
been vindicated, and a new security gained, as to that which the nation
as a whole held most dear.
(2) THE FOREIGN POLICY OF GEORGE I.
(1714-21.)
The first years of the reign of George I form, in the history of
European politics, a period of transition from old principles and con-
ditions to new. The necessity of combination against France passing
out of date, a novel alliance ensues between that Power and Great
Britain. Spain is roused to new life. On the conclusion of the long
war in the north, the European circle is forced open to admit the
new-bom Empire of Russia, while the Swedish yoke is broken. For
Prussia her new King marks out the path which is to lead her to
dispute ultimately with Austria the hegemony of Germany. Holland
and Turkey pass, with Sweden, from the front rank among the Powers.
Europe in 1721 is not the Europe of 1714.
Great Britain was first of all concerned to establish firmly the
Protestant Succession. But her sovereign had a second preoccupation :
to secure for his electorate the Swedish provinces of Bremen and Verden
— the former, at the time of his accession, occupied by Denmark. For
both these objects the support of the Emperor, while France remained
hostile, was absolutely necessary; and, to obtain it, George was willing to
connive at Austrian expansion in Italy. But, when the Triple Alliance,
as shown below, had secured him in England against " James III," and
in Hanover against the Northern Powers, the old principle of the
Balance of Power, that principle which aimed at peace and produced
constant war, resumed its sway. The danger, however, to Europe was
no longer from France, but from Austria and Spain. To settle the
affairs of the south, and so to remove that danger. Stanhope devised
22 Direction of foreign affairs -Relations with France. [i7i4-9
the plan which developed into the Quadruple Alliance of 1718. Dis-
agreement between Austria and Great Britain marked the negotiation
of this compact, and grew greater during the execution of its provisions.
One cause of this was the accord reached in 1719 by Great Britain
and Hanover with Prussia, the product of French interest and French
influence. Alliance with Prussia meant alienation from Austria ; but it
was the necessary preliminary to George's pacification of the north.
The circumstances in which George I ascended the throne of Great
Britain necessitated the recall of the Whig party to power. There were
at this period two Secretaries of State for Foreign Afiairs, charged
with the direction of the two " provinces," into which foreign countries
were, for convenience, grouped. Their authority was nominally
coordinate, but the business of the two departments was always inter-
mingled, and in practice the stronger Minister prevailed. The two men
chosen by George for the charge had little in common but high principle.
Charles, Viscount Townshend, secretary for the Northern province and
head of the Ministry, was a moderate Whig of excellent record and
suflScient but not dominating importance. He was chosen, probably,
for these reasons. His colleague for the Southern province, General
(afterwards Earl) Stanhope, imported into state affairs the energy and
dash which had marked his conduct in the field. He was an accom-
plished diplomatist and linguist, who could undertake embassies to
foreign capitals in person; a man of wide views and with a fine
conception of the part proper to be played in Europe by Great Britain.
During his lifetime he was the real Minister for Foreign Affairs, even
while temporarily occupying another office.
But, during the earlier part of the reign, it was not the Whig
leaders only who directed foreign policy. George had always with him
in London the Hanoverian Ministers previously noticed, whose tried
fidelity he repaid with complete confidence. To Bemstorff English
Ministers deferred as to a recognised authority on European politics,
while foreign representatives resorted to him preferentially. The
interests of Hanover were by him consistently placed in the forefront.
He appreciated the danger threatening them from the rise of Prussia,^
and insisted upon the necessity of maintaining the old devotion of the
House of Brunswick to the Emperor. His influence was strongest after
the Whig schism at the beginning of 1717 had removed from the
Ministry his principal opponents, Townshend and Robert Walpole.
George himself took the keenest personal interest in European
politics, and Whig tradition accorded with his desire that Great Britain
should once more take an active part in them. The first consideration
determining her action was the renewed hostility of France. For
nearly two years a fresh outbreak of war was thought likely and at
times even desirable, the principal subjects in dispute being the
protection afforded by Louis XIV to the Pretender, and the evasion
1714-5] The Barrier Treaty. — Bremen arid Verden. 23
of that article of the Treaty of Utrecht which stipulated the dis-
mantling of Dunkirk, by the preparation of a new war-port at Mardyk,
hardby. It appeared to be of the first importance to revive the
alliance with the United Provinces and the Emperor, which the Peace
of Utrecht had destroyed. To George and his Hanoverian Ministers
such views were entirely congenial; their Government had always been
the most steadfast in Germany in loyalty to the Emperor and the most
zealous in the war with France ; and its close relations with the Hague
were unimpaired.
On George's accession the breach with Holland closed, indeed, of
itself. But the Emperor could not readily forget the betrayal, as he
deemed it, of 1712. And with the Dutch he was at special issue about their
so-called Barrier — the line of fortresses in what were now the Austrian
Netherlands, which, as has been seen in a previous volume, they had
the right to garrison. That right Charles VI obstinately repudiated.
George was readily accepted as mediator in the dispute by both sides,
and appointed General Cadogan to conduct the mediation at Antwerp ;
but all that could be obtained at Vienna in regard to a renewal of
alliance with Great Britain, although Stanhope repaired thither in
person, was the expression of a desire for it, after the Emperor's
demands in regard to the Netherlands should have been satisfied.
Cadogan, however, sent to Vienna in February, 1715, had the boldness
to represent how, in England, Stanhope's failure had inspired the belief
that the Emperor was engaged in negotiations of a wide-reaching
character with France ; and Charles thereupon declared himself faithful
to the old system, conceding also the three points about the Barrier
which it was the object of Cadogan's mission to carry. Yet it was not
till the prospect of the Jacobite rebellion reduced the British Govern-
ment even to entreaties, that a solution in this matter was reached.
A Barrier Treaty was signed at Antwerp by the representatives of the
three Powers on November 15, 1715. But its provisions remained
inoperative for three years, nor could a reconciliation between Austria
and Holland be carried further.
In the north the situation was as follows. The occupation of the
Swedish duchy of Bremen and its fortress-capital Stade by the Danes
in 1712, following upon the failure of the Neutrality Convention of
1710 and the threats of Charles XII, had finally decided George, though
hitherto reckoned the principal ally of Charles in Christian Europe, to
turn against him, and he had entered into negotiations with Frederick IV
of Denmark and Frederick W^illiam I of Prussia for the division of the
Swedish provinces in Germany among themselves, his own share to be
the duchy of Bremen and the principality of Verden. But, the Danes
refusing to give up what they had won, and the demands of Hanover
upon Prussia being too great, the negotiations bore no fruit until it was
known that Charles was about to return from Turkey. Then, George
24 The northern treaties. — The Baltic commerce. [1714-5
concluded with Frederick William a "punctation" for a conventidn
(November 11, 1714), which appointed the permanent possession of
Bremen and Verden to Hanover and that of Stettin and its district,
also Swedish property, to Prussia. Negotiations during the winter
between Frederick William and Charles, who had returned to Stralsund,
having proved fruitless, war broke out between them in April, 1715.
And, Denmark now consenting to receive the north-western portion of
Swedish Pomerania (Vorpommern), and a sum of money from Hanover,
in exchange for Bremen, treaties between the three Powers were shortly
concluded, distributing the Swedish provinces in Germany among them.
That Hanover should possess Bremen and Verden was agreeable enough
to the merchants of Great Britain ; for greater commercial advantages
might be expected from the rule of George than from that of either
Sweden or Denmark.
The part allotted to George under the treaties was nominal, namely,
to prevent aid from coming to Stralsund, while besieged by the Danes
and Prussians, from other German States or from France. He did not
actually declare war against Sweden till Stade had been given up to him
in October. But the real service demanded from and explicitly promised
by him was, that the British squadron proceeding to the Baltic for the
protection of trade should prevent the relief of Stralsund by sea. It was
the commercial interests of Great Britain which made this service possible.
After Peter the Great had conquered from Sweden the eastern ports
of the Baltic, Charles XII had prohibited all trade to them. This trade
was of essential importance to the Maritime Powers, because only from
the Baltic could a sufficient supply of materials for ship-building at this
time be obtained. The damage done by the Swedish privateers, even
while Charles remained in Turkey, was sufficient to provoke the pacific
Ministry of Queen Anne to equip a small squadron for the Baltic —
a useless demonstration, since the ships dared not pass the Sound, and
only by grace of the Swedes were permitted to return home. Charles,
when he came back, increased the stringency of his prohibition. In
February, 1715, he issued an Ordinance of Privateers, which, in the words
of the British resident at Stockholm, rendered it impossible for a
merchant-ship to enter the Baltic without being made a prize. Great
Britain and the United Provinces thereupon agreed to send a joint fleet
thither to convoy the traders. But the instructions given to Sir John
Norris, the British Admiral, authorised him, beyond protecting commerce,
to make reprisals upon Swedish shipping, if opportunity offered; and
George gave his allies to understand that this power would permit an
attack upon the Swedish fleet, if it were encountered. Circumstances
prevented this consummation, in spite of urgent personal appeals to
Norris from the King of Prussia; and vehement complaints came in
consequence from Berlin and Copenhagen. As a compromise, Norris
was ordered to leave behind him, on his return, eight ships to act in
1715-6] Treaties with Spain and Austria. 25
conjunction with the Danish fleet — the first definite act of hostility
towards Sweden on the part of Great Britain. When Stralsund fell,
Charles XII escaped miraculously to Sweden, falsifying the hopes which
had been placed upon his death. And thus, at the beginning of 1716,
King George found himself confronted by rebellion at home, and an
unconquerable enemy abroad.
On the other hand there was a prospect of improved relations with
France and Spain. Louis XIV had been succeeded in September, 1715,
by the boy-king, Louis XV. The next heir, Philip V of Spain, though
he had renounced his right to the succession, disclaimed the validity of
the renunciation. In defiance of his pretensions his cousin, Philip Duke
of Orleans, had seized the Regency. Confronted by powerful opposition
at home, Orleans was driven to seek allies abroad. Overtures which he
made to the Dutch Government were a principal cause of its resoluteness
in resisting the Emperor's demands in the matter of the Barrier. With
George, his near relative on their mothers' side, he had exchanged strong
assurances of friendship already during the last year of Louis XIV,
and though these were suspended on the outbreak of the Jacobite rebellion,
they were renewed on its suppression. On the part of Spain, previously not
less hostile than France, a new policy was begun by Alberoni, the obscure
minister of Parma at Madrid, who was beginning to rule the country
through the new Parmesan Queen. With the consent of the sovereigns,
and in opposition to the views of the Spanish Ministers, he offered a
commercial treaty of the most favourable character. It was signed on
December 14, 1715, and was followed in May by a revision of the
Asiento, which allowed Great Britain to export negroes to the Spanish
Indies. The provisions of the treaty were not, indeed, carried out ; after
it was signed, oppression of British trade continued as before. Alberoni's
intention would seem to have been to quiet England, in order to get rid
of opposition on her part to his Italian schemes ; for his objective was
the replacement of Austrian rule in Italy by Spanish.
But the Austrian alliance was far more important to George than
any advantages which Spain could offer. And, on his side, the Emperor
was realising that he could not carry out his designs upon Sicily without
the aid of a British fleet. The Spanish treaty disturbed Vienna for a
while, as also did another British treaty with Holland, renewing former
treaties of alliance and commerce, concluded on February 6, 1716. But
at length the Treaty of Westminster was signed by the two Powers on
May 25 (O.S.). The peculiarly phrased second article stipialated the
mutual protection and maintenance of the kingdoms, provinces and rights
actually enjoyed, and the defence, if either party were attacked, both of
these possessions and of such as might be acquired by mutual consent
during the continuance of the treaty. The parties to it being Great
Britain and the Emperor only, it could not extend, formally, to the
new acquisitions of Hanover in the north ; but this subject had been
26 Convention with France. — Northern affairs. [i7i6
brought forward in the negotiations, and much in regard to it was
implied.
Definite overtures from the Regent Orleans were again made in March.
In June he sent his confidant, the Abbe Dubois, to the Hague, to confer
personally with Stanhope, then travelling with the King to Hanover.
But George and his advisers were not at this time anxious to come to
the proposed understanding; and they insisted upon the demolition
of the works at Mardyk, and the expulsion of the Pretender and his
adherents from France, as preliminary conditions. The interviews were
not, however, without fruit; they were accompanied by negotiations in
London, and were followed by a yet more secret visit of Dubois to
Hanover in August. As the result, a preliminary convention was signed;
and on October 11 Dubois took his departure, in order to complete a
treaty with Great Britain and Holland at the Hague.
This outcome was principally due to developments in the north. The
plan of war against Sweden in this year (1716) had taken the form of a
Russo-Danish invasion from Zealand, while a joint British, Danish and
Russian fleet blockaded the Swedish in its harbours. Pending the com-
pletion of the Danish preparations, the R.ussian force intended for the
attack took up quarters in Mecklenburg. Its doings there, and the
support which Peter the Great gave to Duke Charles Leopold of Meck-
lenburg-Schwerin, as described in a previous volume, roused the violent
resentment of BemstoriF and other Mecklenburgers in the service of
Hanover and Denmark ; and the good relations established between
Peter and George by their Treaty of Greifswald of October, 1715, were
seriously impaired. And when, on September 17, all being at last ready
for the invasion, Peter suddenly declared that the season was too late,
and showed his intention of quartering his troops again in Mecklenburg
for the winter, an all but open hostility supervened ; while in England
jealousy of Peter's rising power and the fear of his supremacy in the
Baltic increased from day to day. Furthermore, the gravest anxiety was
aroused by the doings of Charles XII. The belief obtained that his
invasion of Norway was but preliminary to a descent upon Scotland from
its ports. He left the remonstrances addressed to him through Sir John
Norris simply unanswered. In July, Baron Gortz, whose enthusiasm
and resource alone made it possible for Charles to carry on the war,
arrived in Holland, the principal object of his mission being to raise
money for his master's service, in order to procure for him ships and
sailors. He was suspected of secret negotiations with the Jacobites,
and his doings confirmed the belief that Charles intended to take
revenge upon George in Great Britain — a revenge the justice of which
was recognised. Under these circumstances, anxiety to conclude the
alliance with France had replaced the former lukewarmness. Orders
were sent to the British envoys at the Hague (October 9) to sign a
preliminary treaty with France only, if the Dutch were not ready to
1716-7] The Triple Alliance. — The Swedish arrests. 27
join in it. Later, the anxiety was increased. Gortz was found to be
approaching the Russian Ministers at the Hague and communicating
with Paris. It began to be believed that a great league in the interests
of the Pretender was in course of formation. Peter proceeding to Holland
in December, Greorge refused to meet him on his way, and rejected the
conciliatory proposals of Russian envoys sent to Hanover.
The completion of Dubois' work was delayed by several causes. Full
powers for the British envoys, Horatio Walpole and Lord Cadogan, had to
be obtained from England; and these were twice objected to by Dubois
as not in strict form. The Dutch Ministers were not satisfied with the
terms of the convention, and were bound, besides, by a resolution of the
States Greneral, not to enter into alliance with France, unless a treaty with
the Emperor could be concluded at the same time. Nor could the Pre-
tender be expelled from France, because he lay dangerously ill at Avignon.
At length, however, a treaty was signed by Great Britain and Prance
on November 28, and on January 4, 1717, there was substituted for it
one signed by the three Powers. This "Triple Alliance" brought the
accord between Great Britain and France designed at Utrecht into real
existence. Great Britain need no longer seek to restore the Grand
Alliance, nor France encourage the Pretender. The security of the
House of Orleans in France and of that of Hanover in England became
a mutual interest. France could enjoy the repose of which she stood
so urgently in need. Together, George and the Regent could direct
the affairs of Europe. The alliance between them was genuine and
proved lasting.
For the delays at the Hague Townshend was held responsible,
undeservedly. But he had differed from the King and Stanhope in their
recent policy, and there were other reasons for the royal disfavour. He
was relieved of his office, and shortly, as is detailed elsewhere, the
Ministiy was reconstituted, with Stanhope at its head. His ideas on
foreign policy agreeing in the main with those of his German colleagues,
their influence rose to its height.
George returned to England at the end of January. Immediately
was put into execution an act which awaited his coming. The Swedish
envoy. Count Gyllenborg, was arrested, and his papers seized. Gortz
also was arrested in Holland, and kept in prison till August. The
so-called conspiracy was published to the world. It is probable that,
but for the Whig schism at home, war with Sweden might have been
declared. Charles XII, when the news reached him, retorted by putting
the British resident at Stockholm under arrest and forbidding his Dutch
colleague the Court. In the course of the summer the quarrel was an-anged
by the interposition of the Regent, and though the settlement was little
to George's satisfaction, he was obliged to accept it, owing to growing
discontent in Holland. But, before its terms could be carried out, Gortz
was released by the independent action of the States of Gelderland; and.
28 Hanoverian and Russian negotiations with Sweden. [i7i7-8
instead of being sent back to Sweden, as had been intended, be was left
free to pursue his schemes in Holland and Germany.
In May Peter the Great visited Paris. His proposals of alliance with
Finance only resulted, as has been seen in a previous volume, in a colour-
less treaty of friendship between France, Russia and Prussia, signed on
August 15 at Amsterdam, which admitted French mediation in the north
and put an end to the payment of French subsidies to Sweden on the
expijation of the existing treaty. One consequence of the negotiations
was the withdrawal of the-Bassian troops from Mecklenburg.
A British* squadron again visited the Baltic this year. The principal
instructions giyen to Sir George Byng, who was in command, were to
prevent a Swedish descent on the British coasts. He would, with the
Danish fleet, have assaulted Karlskrona, had not the help of a land-force
been required. A Swedish frigate was attacked and destroyed. Further-
more, trade with Sweden was prohibited, in order that the country might
be reduced by famine. This measure, however, recoiled upon its authors ;
for the Dutch, whose Baltic trade was twice as great as the British,
declined, in spite of all possible "persuasion, to follow suit, and British
merchants saw their trade cut off only to benefit their chief rivals.
Frederick IV of Denmark also prohibited trade to Sweden, but failed in
his attempt to conclude treaties with Great Britain and Hanover for
the prosecution of the war.
Final negotiations with Peter the Great took place at Amsterdam in
August. They were conducted by his old acquaintances. Sir John Norris
and Charles Whitworth, the latter, perhaps, the ablest of British repre-
sentatives abroad. But the aim on both sides seems to have been less to
arrive at an understanding than to discover intentions. The conferences
led to nothing. In fact, both George and Peter were now separately
engaged in private peace negotiations with Sweden. These had been
opened by George in the spring through Landgrave Charles of Hesse-
-Cassel (whose eldest son had married Ulrica Eleonora, sister of Charles
XII), and through the Regent's envoy. Count de La Marck. Then, while
his British Ministers were busy at Amsterdam, George arranged very
secret conferences between his Hanoverian Councillor, Weipart Ludwig
von Fabrice (Fabricius), and Count Vellingk, the Swedish governor of
Bremen. The negotiations failed, for the cession of Bremen and Verden
was refused. But early in 1718 Fabrice's son, Friedrich Ernst, in the
service of the Duke of Holstein-Gottorp, who, after acting as inter-
mediary between his father and VeUingk had been summoned to England
in great secrecy, was sent on a private mission to Sweden. On Peter's
side there were conferences with the Swedish resident at the Hague and
others, and with Gortz after his release. In consequence, Gortz was
accorded Russian and Prussian passports to return to Sweden through
those countries. Evading certain British cruisers on the look-out for him,
he arrived safely at Lund, the bearer of proposals which led to the Aland
me-v] Invadon of Sardinia.— The " Plan" 29
conferences of the following year. His doings gave King George special
anxiety, on account of events of the first importance, which had happened
in the south.
All this time, Alberoni had been quietly but unceasingly at work on
the regeneration of Spain. He had succeeded in creating a fleet, and in
August, 1717, suddenly put the weapons which he had forged to their
trial -stroke. A Spanish expedition sailed from Barcelona for Cagliari;
and by the end of November all Sardinia, then belpnging to the
Emperor, was in Philip's hands. Austriaj^-having no ^hips, could not
retaliate without the aid of a British fleet. But the Empei-ofs demand
that a fleet should be sent, in accordance with the Treaty of Westminster,
was met by the reply that nothing could be done.while he remained at
issue with Holland, the British Government being well aware that the
nation would not submit to see its Spanish and West Indian commerce
imperilled, unless the Dutch imdertook an equal risk. Friendly expostu-
lations were made at Madrid ; but Alberoni, who was supposed to lay
value on the friendship of England, unexpectedly proved defiant.
The Treaty of Westminster, indded, and the Triple Alliance were
antagonistic to each other. The latter was as little relished at Vienna
as the former had been at Paris. But now the two were to be combined
in a great scheme which had for its object the settlement of affairs
in southern Europe. Charles VI was not only still at war with Philip V
of Spain, and claimed his crown, but was bent on depriving the House
of Savoy of its recent gains in Sicily and the Milanese, and on succeeding
to the dominions of the expiring dynasties of the Medici in Tuscany and
the Famesi in Parma and Piacenza. Philip V, besides claiming the suc-
cession in France, aimed at the recovery of the old possessions of Spain
in Italy. The " Plan," as it was called, confirmed and confined him in
Spain, gave Sicily to the Emperor and Sardinia to Savoy in exchange,
and settled the succession in Tuscany and Parma and Piacenza upon the
Duke of Parma's great-nephews, tiie sons of Philip V by his second-
marriage. Such a settlement, it was thought, would at once set limits to
Spanish and Austrian ambition, and secure the position of the House of
Orleans in France and of that of Brunswick in Great Britain and in
Hanover.
The Plan had been opened in November, 1716, at Vienna and
pursued in conferences at Hanover with the Austrian envoy, Baron von
Penterriedter. On his way back to England, Stanhope communicated
it to Dubois at the Hague. But the Emperor refused to renounce either
his Spanish claims, or his designs against Savoy ; and negotiations halted
until the news arrived of the invasion of Sardinia. Meanwhile, efforts on
Alberoni's part to conciliate the Regent, aided by the strong influence
of the Spanish party at Paris and by increased jealousy of Austria con-
sequent upon Prince Eugene's great victory at Belgrade, all but brought
about an alliance between Spain and France. To prevent this, and to
30 Subsidy to Austria. — Progress of the " Plan" [1716-8
keep his master in the right piath, Dubois, who was in London, came
back hurriedly to Paris at the end of November. His arguments pre-
vailed, and the Regent definitely rejected Alberoni's overtures.
Besides ships for the Mediterranean, the Emperor urgently needed
money. In 1716, after the Turks had conquered the Morea from Venice
and had advanced into Dalmatia, he was compelled by his treaty
engagements and by the danger which threatened Hungary to declare
war upon them. Its course brought fresh laurels to Prince Eugene;
but it cost much money, and detained on the Turkish frontier armies
that were wanted in Italy. Although this War was specially excepted
from the Treaty of Westminster, Greorge was ready to provide funds,
on condition that the Belgian ports should be forbidden to furnish
transport vessels to the Swedes or give protection to their privateers, and
that all Jacobites should be expelled from the Emperor's dominions upon
request — these demands to be embodied in an additional secret article
to the Treaty of Westminster. In return. Great Britain was to find
d&130,000, nominally in satisfaction of arrears from the Spanish War.
Though the Emperor long held out against the mention of the Pretender
by name, in the end the article was signed, in December, 1717. In order
that the concessions might not appear to have been bought, it was
antedated September 1. The money was paid in January.
Meanwhile, a new project for the Plan had been handed to Penterriedter
in London (November 23). Although he expressed doubts as to its
being worth while for him to remain in England, he was in February,
1718, ordered to renew the conferences. But the British Government
thought it better to transfer them to Vienna, and sent thither the able
Swiss diplomatist, Luke Schaub, with a draft for a treaty between Great
Britain, France, Austria and Holland — the " Quadruple Alliance."
But a new complication now appeared. Charles VI had entered into
negotiation with the King of Sicily (Victor Amadeus II of Savoy). The
Prince of Piedmont was to marry an Austrian Archduchess, and Italian
questions were to be settled by a separate agreement. Schaub's proposals
were rebuffed, and it seemed as though all would fail. He and his
fellow-countryman, St Saphorin, the British Minister at Vienna, were
therefore surprised, when on April 4 they were informed that the
Emperor would accept the treaty in its main points. Discussions,
however, dragged on for seven further weeks before reference could be
made to Paris. At the beginning of April Stanhope resumed the
office of a Secretary of State, while the very capable James Craggs (the
younger) took the place which had been unsuitably filled by Addison.
To endeavour to persuade the Spaniards to accept the Plan, the
Regent sent the Marquis de Nancr^ to Madrid in March. But Alberoni
had schemes now on foot beyond conquest in Italy : nothing less than to
combine Sweden, Russia and Prussia, when they had concluded the peace
expected, and France too, if the Regent's Government could be upset, in
1718-9] The Quadruple Alliance. 31
a great league to oust George I from the British throne in favour of
James III. Spanish emissaries were busy in Holland trying to buy ships
and munitions of war, and in the north. Overtures too were made to
the Transylvanian Prince, Francis II Rdkdczy, formerly leader of the
insurrection in Hungary, inviting him to raise fresh difficulties for the
Emperor there. On the news of naval preparations in England, Alberoni
threatened to seize British ships and merchandise in Spain. When the
terms proposed were handed to him they were indignantly refused. He
declined even to consider the restoration of Gibraltar, offered as the
price of commercial concessions and peace.
Schaub was back in Paris on June 18, but found the situation
altered ; the French were now unwilling to enter into the treaty.
Proceeding to London, he found Dubois, who had returned thither, in
despair. It was decided as a last hope to send Stanhope in person to
Paris. He arrived there with Schaub on June 29, and learnt that
another Spanish armament had sailed from Barcelona.
It was now, after much resistance, resolved to draw up an ultimatum
to the Emperor, in the form of a convention between France and Great
Britain. But when the convention was ready, the president of the
Coimcil of Foreign Affairs, Marshal d'Huxelles, refused to take the
responsibility of signing it, or at least its secret articles, which provided
for compulsion upon Spain and Savoy, if required. In this emergency
Stanhope proposed to submit the convention to the whole Council of
Regency, and, due preparatory measures having been taken, the bold
stroke succeeded. It was signed on July 18, and Charles VI accepting it,
the Quadruple Alliance was at last concluded in London as between
Great Britain, France and Austria, on August 2, 1718. In part a treaty
of mutual defence and guarantee, it also dictated to Spain and Savoy the
terms, in substance, originally proposed. While to Stanhope should be
given the chief credit of success both in the conception and execution of
the Plan, it must be allowed that he could hardly have achieved it, but
for the special influence enjoyed at Vienna by the Court of Hanover.
The Dutch Republic was a party to the Quadruple Alliance in
nothing but name. The British Government made the greatest efforts
to obtain the accession of the States General ; but there was always a
strong party in Holland objecting, in the interests of trade, to war imder
any circumstances. Grand Pensionary Heinsius had been able for many
years to stem its arguments, upholding the traditions of the Stad-
holders ; but he was now old and ailing, and there was no man to take his
place., The efforts of the British envoys failed, even when they seemed
to be successful. At first the Dutch required from France and Austria
conditions extraneous to the Spanish question. When these had with
difficulty been obtained for them by King George, they found other
pretexts for evasion. A resolution to accede was adopted by the States
General at the end of January, 1719 ; but, when the time for signature
32 The Peace of.Passarowitz. — Byng's expedition. [1717^20
came, it was found that the powers provided did not extend to the
essential secret artieles. On a like occasion, in June, the cunning
insertion of a word or two was held to render the accession valueless.
And, though, on December 16, 1719, it was resolved to sign, after an
interval of three months for the exertion of good offices, without reserve,
the signature was still withheld.
WLUiam III had made the Hague the political centre of Europe.
The enforcement of the doctrine of peace at any price by a minority of
merchants, enabled to do so by the formalities of the constitution,
forfeited that high position. . Perhaps their policy was necessary, for
the Republic was almost bankrupt. The United Provinces fell to the
second rank among the Powers. The date of the death of Heinsius,
August 8, 1720, may be taken to mark this fall.
Shortly before the Quadruple AUiance was signed, the Turkish War
ended. George all along had watched its course with anxiety, for it
grievously weakened his ally,. The victory of Belgrade (August 16, 1717)
was hailed in England as a success of the greatest consequence, affecting
both north and south. Immediately thereon George offered his mediation.
The Dutch followed suit, and a congress was opened at Passarowitz.
The first exorbitant demands of the Emperor were reduced imder the
pressure of the Italian crisis, but Austria gained greatly. The prestige
of the Peace, sighed July 21, 1718, accrued to George, whose pleni-
potentiary, Sir Robert Sutton, had carried it through with little aid from
his Dutch colleague, Coimt Colyer. With the Quadruple Alliance and
the Turkish mediation, George's European ascendancy reached its zenith.
He assumed the position, says Ranke, which William III held after the
Peace of Ryswyk, with the French alliance to boot.
The destination of the Spanish armament which sailed from Barcelona
in June, 1718, was Sicily. Palermo and the greater part of the island
were rapidly conquered with the willing aid of the inhabitants. Here-
upon, however, in compliance with the Emperor's demands, a British
fleet appeared in the Mediterranean ; and Colonel Stanhope at Madrid
was ordered to use firm language to Alberoni, in regard both to the
oppression of commerce and to the prosecution of the war.
Admiral Sir George Byng, after changing garrisons in Minorca,
sailed straight for Naples. Here he learnt that Messina was partly
taken, that the citadel must fall unless assistance could be sent, and,
further, that the King of Sicily had expressed his desire to join the
Quadruple Alliance, and asked for help. If Messina fell, the Spaniards
would have a secure port from which to transfer their army to Calabria.
Byng was instructed to prevent a Spanish invasion of Italy, or of Sicily
with that object, by force, if negotiation failed. He proceeded, at the
request of the Austrian Viceroy, to act accordingly. Arrived at Messina,
he found that the Spanish fleet had retreated before him down the Straits.
Landing an Austrian force,, which he brought with him, at Reggio, he
1718-9] AlberonVs reply. — The first Treaty of Vienna. 33
sent to request the Marquis de Lede to agree to a suspension of arms,
pending receipt of further instructions. This being refused, he started
in pursuit of the fleet, and on August 11 utterly destro3'ed it off Cape
Passaro. That he had done right, he learnt from instructions received
later, ordering him not to content himself with driving the fleet away
with the loss of a ship or two, but to annihilate it.
Great Britain was not at war with Spain ; her fleet acted as auxiliary
to the Emperor. Diplomatic relations were not broken off for some
months. Stanhope himself an-ived at Madrid the day after the battle
had been fought. He could effect nothing ; Alberoni curtly intimated
that Byng might carry out his instructions. The news of the capture
of the town of Messina and the arrival of a large sum of money fi-om
America fortified Philip's resolution. When the news of Cape Passaro
came, early in September, orders were issued to seize all British ships
and merchandise in Spanish ports, as had been threatened. Byng was
ordered to make, in return, the severest reprisals.
One result of the attack on Sicily was the submission of Victor
Amadeus. After vain efforts on his part to obtain better terms, his
plenipotentiaries acceded to the Quadruple Alliance in London on
November 8. In exchange for his title of King of Sicily he received
that of King of Sardinia.
Alberopi would not submit. His Italian enterprise frustrated, he
turned to attack Great Britain and France. Feigning conciliation, he
set on foot a plot against the Regent. The Spanish ambassador at
Paris, Prince Cellamare, concerted it with the Court of the most active
of the malcontents, the Duchess of Maine. Their doings were known,
or at least discovered when matured; Cellamare was conducted to the
frontier, the other conspirators imprisoned. On Great Britain Alberoni's
attack was overt. The Atlantic ports of Spain resounded with the
equipment of a second Armada. To meet the danger, the British
Government got ready every available ship and arranged for the help
of Dutch, French, and other soldiers and sailors. Parliament by a large
majority authorised a declaration of war on December 17 (O.S.). And, in
consequence of the strong reaction against Spain at Paris, resulting from
the Cellamare conspiracy, the Regent was enabled to carry out his promise
of like action, although the Quadruple Alliance only obliged France to
furnish subsidies. France declared war against Spain on January 9, 1719.
Alberoni's scheme comprised a Swedish descent on Scotland and an
attack by Sweden and Russia upon Hanover, in combination with the
Spanish invasion of England. It was fully believed that Charles XII had
concluded the peace with Peter the Great which would render this possible;
indeed, on September 6, l7l8, the latter actually signed a treaty for a
joint invasion of Germany. In self-defence George, as Elector, concluded
with Austria and Saxony the Treaty of Vienna of January 5, 1719. It
engaged the parties to mutual defence and to offensive diversion into
C. M. H. VI.
34 Northern affairs. — The War with Spain. [1718-9
neighbouring countries of the enemy. This provision could, in the case
of Hanover, only apply to Brandenburg or Mecklenburg, and, indeed,
the treaty was directed against Prussia as well as against the dreaded
Tsar, and was so understood at Berlin. Its chief object was to prevent
the passage of Russian troops through Poland into Germany.
The year 1718 had in the north been devoted to negotiation.
Fabrice arrived at Lund at the end of February, and, when nothing was
heard from him, was followed by another emissary, Schrader, conveyed
to Sweden on a British man-of-war. Fabrice saw Gortz and Charles
himself, and believed that he had obtained acceptable terms. The
negotiation was purely Hanoverian; it was kept as secret as possible
from the Enghsh Ministers, though confided to Count de La Marck.
Nothing came of it; Charles would not cede Bremen and Verden; George
was in a sufficiently strong position to be able to await events. Sir John
Norris, instructed as Byng had been in the previous year, conducted a
squadron to the Baltic to act as he had done. Meanwhile, Peter was
occupied with the conferences at the Aland Isles. Four times Gortz
repaired thither ; three times he brought back proposals which Charles
rejected. On his last return, at the end of November, he learnt that a
British envoy was going to St Petersburg. He then decided to support
the plan of Chancellor MUUem for peace with Hanover. But on
December 11 Charles XII met his fate at Frederikshald, and three
months later Gortz perished on the scaffold.
The mission to St Petersburg was the consequence of amicable
assurances given by the Russian resident in London. In the place of
Sir John Norris, who had been appointed to it, but evaded the task,
it was undertaken by Captain James Jefferyes, who had been with
Charles XII at Poltawa, and accredited to him at Bender and in
Stralsund. Jefferyes found that the Russian professions were illusory ;
all that was presented to him was a draft of the defensive treaty
proposed and rejected in 1716. Instead of a desire for amity, he could
only report extensive armaments by sea and land.
With the death of Charles XII, the hopes of Alberoni and the
Jacobites from this quarter vanished into air. So great was the relief in
England that Craggs saw in the catastrophe the hand of Providence.
But the new Spanish Armada sailed, only to be defeated, even more
conclusively than the old, by the elements. Violent storms dispersed it
before it ever reached English waters. A separate force, which landed
in the Western Highlands, was easily mastered. Later, a French army
entered Spain. Philip V could not believe that it would fight against
the next heir to the French throne, or the Duke of Berwick conduct it
against the interests of his brother. He tried seduction, but failed ; nor
had he troops fit to oppose the French; the army iJiat should have
defended Spain was locked up in Sicily. Fuenterrabia and San Sebastian
fell; Catalonia was then invaded; an English expedition under Lord
1719-20] Submission of Spain. — The Prussian IVeaties. 35
Cobham captured Vigo. These successes did not end the war, but they
decided the fate of Alberoni, against whom, rather than against Spain,
it was waged.. Philip and his Queen protracted it, but its author had to
bear the blame of its failure. In December he was dismissed by a palace
intrigue promoted by his own patron, Francis Duke of Parma.
Before submitting to peace, Philip demanded extravagant concessions.
His prospects were now brighter : the French army had been obliged to
retire from Catalonia; the Marquis de Lede was holding out well iii
Sicily; a private settlement with Austria was possible. But Great
Britain and France insisted upon accession to the Quadruple Alliance
without reserve, before further terms could be discussed. In January,
Philip reduced his demands to the restoration of the places taken —
including Gibraltar — and the occupation of the Italian duchies by
Spanish troops and their complete independence of the Emperor, as
conditions for the evacuation of Sicily and Sardinia. But he was still
met with firmness ; and at length his ambassador at the Hague signed
the Quadruple Alliance on February 17, 1720.
By this time George had almost completed that pacification of the
north, which the support of the Regent enabled him to carry out.
When, after the death of Charles XII, it became obligatory on Sweden
to make peace, and in the first place either with Hanover or Russia,
George's plan was that Hanover, Denmark, and Prussia, in return for
the cession to them of the Swedish provinces in Germany, should
combine with the Emperor and the King of Poland to force the Tsar to
restore his conquests on the eastern coast of the Baltic. But the Powers
concerned had different views. Sweden was ready to make peace with
Russia, if Peter would restore Livonia and the Port of Reval as well
as Finland. Denmark was for prosecuting tte war to its extremity,
in order to win back provinces in Sweden lost sixty years before. Frederick
William of Prussia was closely allied with Peter, and was resolved upon
maintaining the alliance. Finally, France insisted that Sweden must
preserve a footing in the Empire, in order that her voice might be used,
as of old, against the supremacy of Austria. The Regent advocated,
as a first step, a reconciliation between Hanover and Prussia.
Bemstorff, ever loyal to the Emperor, threw the whole weight of
his authority against this suggestion, but was overruled; the French
alliance was indispensable. The Regent's policy was accepted ; Whit-
worth was sent back to his old post at Berlin to conduct negotiations
for treaties with Great Britain and Hanover. These were protracted
for three months by difficulties of Hanoverian origin, and by Frederick
William's hatred of the King of Poland, whom George desired to include
in the latter treaty. Twice Stanhope and the French ambassador. Count
Senneterre, fought pitched battles with Bemstorff at Hanover, and were
victorious. In spite of the angry reluctance of Frederick William,
continued to the end, the treaties were forced upon him. They were
OB. 1. 3—2
36 Treaties with Sweden. [1719-20
sighed on August 14, 1719. The Hanoverian treaty guaranteed Bremen
and Verden to Hanover, and Stettin and its district to Prussia.
In the meantime the young Lord Carteret, ambassador from Great
Britain, and Colonel Adolphus Frederick von Bassewitz on the part of
Hanover, had been busy at Stockholm. Under the pressure of the
simultaneous Russian and Danish invasions, the Swedes signed a con-
vention ceding Bremen and Verden (July 22). This was received at
Hanover on August 5, but contained nothing about a cession of Stettin,
Carteret having been forbidden to make any mention of this. In order
that the cession might appear to have been agreed upon at Berlin
before the Swedish convention reached Hanover, the Prussian treaties
were antedated by ten days. A clause providing for it was sent to
Stockholm to be inserted in the British treaty.
The main condition for the cession of Bremen and Verden was that
the British squadron, now at Copenhagen, should proceed up the Baltic
to protect Sweden from the Russian attack. But the Russian men-of-
war were twice as many as the British, and might be reinforced by those
of Denmark. Not until Prussia had been secured and other ships had
arrived, was Sir John Norris allowed to sail.. Anxiety was expressed
that he might meet with the Russian fleet and destroy it, as the best
possible service to his country. But it was already safe at Reval, and
the galleys could not be reached among the northern shallows. The
news of Norris' sailing, however, enabled Carteret to obtain the reluctant
cession of Stettin ; the preliminary convention with Great Britain em-
bodying it and confirming that with Hanover was signed on August 29.
Carteret's success was due less, perhaps, to his great diplomatic talents
than to lavish bribery of the Swedish senators. Essential, too, was
the promise of British and French subsidies. The first of the latter,
obtained by George's influence, was brought to Stockholm by the French
envoy, Campredon, at the end of August.
Norris stayed on in Stockholm waters till November. Threatening
letters, pressing mediation on the Tsar, were sent to the Aland Isles,
but unceremoniously returned. Final treaties with Hanover and Great
Britain were signed on November 20, 1719 and February 1, 1720, the
latter binding Great Britain to aid Sweden against Russia. On that
day also the Swedish plenipotentiaries signed, and Carteret and Cam-
predon, as mediators, accepted a treaty between Sweden and Prussia.
They adopted this course in order that the Riksdag, about to meet,
might not interfere. The Prussian envoy, Knyphausen, could not sign,
being bound by orders from home on minor points. But the King of
Prussia was persuaded to accept the treaty. A preliminary convention
with the King of Poland was signed on January 18.
There remained the peace with Denmark ; but to bring this to a
conclusion seemed impossible. The Danes were throughout as insistent
on their full demands as the Swedes were determined on yielding nothing.
1719-21] Endof the Northern War. -Discord with Austria. 37
With great difficulty an armistice had been forced upon Denmark as
from October 30. When after six months it lapsed, little progress had
been made. Frederick IV, in the end, was driven from his position, not
by the threats of George, but by the action of the Emperor in taking
up the cause of the dispossessed Duke of Holstein-Gottorp. It appeared
that, if he persisted, Denmark might even lose Schleswig. By May,
1720, disputes were narrowed down to the amount of money to be paid
by Sweden for the restoration of Stralsund and Riigen. On June 14
Carteret accepted, as before, terms signed by the Swedes alone. With
these he repaired to Frederiksborg, and persuaded the King of Denmark
to accept them (July 3). All that Denmark obtained by her ten years'
war was a payment of 600,000 crowns, the abolition of the Swedish
exemption from the Sound dues, and British and French guarantees for
the retention of her conquest of Gottorpian Schleswig.
Besides George's plan of peace there was his plan of war, and this
failed utterly. No Power would join him in offensive action against
Peter the Great. British squadrons again entered the Baltic in 1720
and 1721, but they could not attack the Russian ports, or even prevent
fresh incursions. The men-of-war could not penetrate among the rocks
and islands to the north of Stockholm ; when four Swedish frigates made
the attempt, they ran aground and were destroyed. Already in October,
1720, George advised the new King of Sweden (Frederick I) to conclude
with the Tsar on what terms he could. He offered ^^20,000 for distribu-
tion among the senators, and a subsidy of ^"100,000, if the cost of
another expedition to the Baltic could be saved. But the Swedes held
him to his engagements, and were consequently forced to accept the Peace
of Nystad (September 10, 1721), Peter the Great kept all the coast from
Finland to Courland, and Sweden passed finally from her high estate.
While Great Britain was thus working in accord with France both
in north and south, her relations with the Emperor were changing for
the worse. He resented King George's alliance with Prussia and the
disposal of provinces in Germany without reference to himself. In the
attacks which were being made upon Protestant liberties in the Palatinate
and elsewhere his sympathy was with Rome, while George and Frederick
William were strenuous in their defence. It was believed that the Pre-
tender's bride, Clementina Sobieska, had escaped from Innsbruck with the
connivance of the imperial Court. The Spanish party at Vienna, headed
by the "favourite," Count Althan, and supported by the papal Court and
by that of Turin, was employing every means to subvert the policy of the
Quadruple Alliance. The Piedmont marriage mentioned above was again
in contemplation, and Charles was only dissuaded from its accomplishment
by George's personal appeals. And, lastly, there was the question of the
succession to the Italian duchies. Strictly speaking, Spain not having
acceded to the Quadruple Alliance within the allotted term of three
months, the Queen of Spain's sons had forfeited those " expectatives," as
38 Strained relations with France. [1719-20
they were termed. Charles VI claimed them, but his allies resisted the
claim, demanding an extension of the term of grace. The Dutch insisted
on this as a condition of their accession to the Quadruple Alliance.
It came to be believed at Vienna that France and Great Britain were
prompting these delays for the sake of conciliating the Duke of Parma,
who, on the other hand, was looked upon by the Emperor as his
principal opponent in Italy. In the end, a convention was signed on
November 18, 1719, obliging Spain to accede within three months, or
forfeit the expectatives. The Emperor was forced to submit by his
inability to expel the Spaniards from Sicily and Sardinia without the
aid of a British fleet, and by his want of money.
Spain, as has been seen, acceded within the term. But now Great
Britain and France, unanimous during the War, disputed the conditions
of the Peace. The principal subject of their quarrel was Gibraltar. The
Regent supposed that the offer of the restoration of the fortress, made
before the war, still held good, and pledged himself to it. Both George
and Stanhope approved, the latter more than once expressing the opinion
that possession of the place was a burden to England rather than an
advantage. But the suggestion was met in Parliament by so violent
an outburst of resentment that he was glad to let the subject fall,
fearing a formal resolution to the contrary. Furthermore, the vigilant
Lord Stair at Paris, always suspicious of the Regent's good intentions,
was sending alarming reports of military and naval preparations, and
of favour shown to the Jacobites. George went so far as to fit out a
squadron for defence against France, under pretext of danger in the
Mediterranean. The strain was increased by the conduct of Law,
described elsewhere in this volume. Dubois, his personal antagonist,
strove earnestly for the maintenance of good relations, yet so critical was
the situation in March, 1720, that Stanhope had to repair to Paris a
second time that year. Stair, who had attacked Law violently, had to
be recalled. Stanhope's arguments were fortunately supported by the
discovery, or belief, of the Regent that Philip V was playing him false.
It was agreed to send special envoys to Spain to treat conjointly.
Moreover, the unsoundness of Law's System, as it had now been developed,
was becoming evident. So greatly had its success been previously feared,
that Stanhope wrote that if it took root, as appeared probable, the
Emperor, Great Britain and Holland, even with Prussia on their side,
would not be able to stand against France ; and Stair's last service at
Paris was to demonstrate to the Regent that it must be abandoned.
Sir Robert Sutton, who replaced him in June, adopted a different
line of conduct. He showed confidence, instead of withholding it.
Having investigated the reports of French armaments, he declared his
belief that they were unfounded. Yet, in July, Craggs detailed to
him a list of grounds of suspicion still entertained, and the French
ambassador was informed of the real reason for the equipment of the
1720-1] Breach with Austria. — The Treaties of Madrid. 39
squadron of defence. But at the end of the month George decided
that it might be laid up, and the autumn saw a restoration of amity.
The case against Law was quietly but firmly pressed ; in December he
was dismissed from his employments. Great Britain and France could
now pursue amicably the consummation which both desired, reconciliation
with Spain. It was decided to refer the question of Gibraltar and other
matters in dispute to the Congress appointed to meet at Cambray,
though it seemed desirable to arrive at an accord upon them in advance,
in order to oblige the Emperor to adhere to his engagements. Stanhope
held out to Spain the definite expectation that Gibraltar would be
restored, after the Government should have extricated itself from the
difficulties due to the failure of the South Sea Company.
By this time the Emperor was looked upon at the English Court
almost as an enemy. BernstorfF, still faithful to him, had lost his credit —
the result of his opposition to the Prussian alliance and of Court intrigues
consequent upon the reconciliation of George with the Prince of Wales,
and promoted by Walpole, his determined enemy, whom the South Sea
catastrophe called to power. George and Frederick William not only
refused to send plenipotentiaries to the Congress of Brunswick — that
shadowy Congress which had been sitting in form for the settlement
of northern affairs since 1712 — but dissuaded the King of Sweden
from doing so. The Emperor persisted in refusing to invest the King
of Prussia with Stettin ; and the refusal obliged George to decline for
the present the investiture of Bremen and Verden. Protests addressed
to Vienna against the impolicy of driving Prussia, possibly, to raise a
storm within the Empire, were in vain. Further, the homeless Duke of
Holstein-Gottorp, having repaired to Vienna, was favourably received
there, and, through him, an approximation ensued between Austria and
Russia. In November, 1720, Cadogan was recalled from Vienna in anger,
and St Saphorin was ordered to speak no more about northern afiairs.
On March 27, 1721, a treaty was signed at Madrid between Spain
and France. It was a treaty of mutual defence and guarantee, the
King of France promising his most pressing offices for the restoration
of Gibraltar and for the regulation of questions concerning the Italian
duchies. Stanhope had died on February 16, but his policy was pursued
by his successors under the direction of the King, who wrote to Philip
promising to restore Gibraltar, in return for certain concessions, so
soon as the consent of Parliament could be obtained. On June 13,
the Treaty of Madrid was extended to include Great Britain. There
followed the betrothals of the Infanta of Spain to Louis XV, and of
the Regent's eldest daughter to the Prince of Asturias. A new system
of European politics was set on foot. At the beginning of Walpole's
term of power the conduct of foreign policy by Townshend and Carteret
was based on a grouping of Great Britain, France, Spain and Prussia
against the Emperor and the Tsar.
40
CHAPTER II.
THE AGE OF WALPOLE AND THE PELHAMS.
(1)
Chateaubriand once caustically declared that the Revolution of
1688, which Englishmen termed the "glorious," would be more fitly
entitled the "useful." This epigram is less applicable to the age of
William and Anne than to that of Walpole. Under William and Anne
the wars, the conspiracies, the executions, the victories, remind us that
we are still, in some sort, in a heroic age ; under Walpole idealism or
self-sacrifice is absent, the scene reveals few great events or great figures.
His period is one of peace, uneventful, almost undisturbed ; its chief
crisis was due to stock -jobbing, its chief disputes are about currency and
excise, its chief victories those of commerce, its type, if not its hero, a
business man. The age has changed ; the claims of rival merchants, not
the sermons of rival preachers, are the incentives to strife ; to the wars
for religious or political rights succeed the wars of dynastic or commercial
ambition. The tyranny of ideas, which had caused the religious contentions
of the seventeenth century, yields to the tyranny of facts and materialism,
which causes the political strife of the eighteenth. England, exhausted by
two generations of civil strife, at length learns to acquiesce patiently in a
dynasty that is foreign, in rulers who are opportunist and uninspiring,
and in standards that are low. No one, indeed, will deny that the age of
Walpole brought many benefits to England — a long peace which enabled
her to recover from effort and overstrain, to gamer the spoils won for
her by the diplomacy of William and by the sword of Marlborough, to fill
her coffers with gold and to cover the sea with her ships. Few ages have
been more useful to England in the narrowest sense, few more materially
prosperous ; yet few have been less productive in the nobler and more
ideal elements of national life. We are only saved from describing
the age in the words which Porson once applied to an individual — as
"mercantile and mean beyond merchandise and meanness," by the re-
flexion that the age of Sunderland, of the second George, and of Walpole
is also that of Berkeley, of Wesley, and of Pitt.
1720-2] The "Bubble." — WalpoWs rise to power. 41
The period opens, perhaps a little too characteristically, with the
hideous scandals of the South Sea Bubble, This gigantic crisis of
stock -jobbing, which is described elsewhere, was perhaps less serious for
England than was the national decadence to which it called attention.
The politicians had revealed their widespread corruption, directors and
business men their unscrupulous greed, and the public, as a whole, hardly
appeared in a better light. The fury which it showed in its pursuit and
punishment of the directors, was little less discreditable than its previous
avarice and credulity. In the midst of this turmoil, persecuted directors,
hard-pressed politicians, and a public thirsting for their blood, alike
turned for salvation or counsel to the shrewd and experienced statesman,
who had once been First Lord of the Treasury, but who since April,
1720, had held the quite insignificant post of Paymaster of the Forces.
Walpole, as the one prominent man in the Ministry responsible for
the disaster who had disbelieved in the success of the Bubble, was
therefore the only politician to improve his reputation by its failure.
As a private individual he had profited largely from the credulity of the
public at the time of the Bubble ; he was now to profit yet more from it
as a statesman. The universal recognition of his business ability, of his
massive common sense, of his political moderation, marked him out as
the one man fit to cope with the disaster and to minimise its ill-effects.
His plan for restoring the tottering credit of the nation was accepted by
Parliament, and its success secured him in power. He had indeed no
rivals to fear or to face among the Ministers; Earl Stanhope and the
two Craggs were dead; Aislabie was in the Tower; Sunderland and
Charles Stanhope, though acquitted by Parliament, had not been absolved
by the nation. Feeling his unpopularity to be insuperable, Sunderland
resigned in 1722, and Walpole succeeded him in office as First Lord of the
Treasury, becoming also Chancellor of the Exchequer (April, 1722). As
Townshend — Walpole's brother-in-law — had already (February) become
Principal Secretary for Foreign Affairs, Walpole found it easy to grasp
the chief power in the State. So long as he agreed with Townshend, he
needed only the favour of his sovereign, in order to remain supreme.
In some respects the character of George the First — as of his son —
has been wronged, for, though their standard of private conduct may have
in some respects been low and their view of human nature not high, they
had genuine merits. Each showed a judicious patronage towards learning
both in England and in Hanover, and, though they have been accused
of despising the arts, few of their English subjects had so genuine a love
for music, or showed so good a taste in appreciating it. With regard to
their public conduct, it can hardly be denied that they were in many
ways superior to the average English politician of the age. Each did
his best to stop the infamous traffic and sale of commissions in the
army and something to check the prevalent political corruption.
With little knowledge of English ways and much innate aversion from
42 The power of the first two Georges. [1714-37
constitutional government, thiey both consented to be directed by
their English Ministers, and honestly observed the bargain between
themselves and the English people. It is true that their foreign policy
sometimes showed an intelligible bias towards Hanoverian interests; but
this defect was more than balanced by their avoidance of vexatious
interference in domestic policy, and by the zeal with which they laboured
to compose diiFerences between rival religious sects and rival political
factions. The safe mediocrity of the first two Georges was indeed their
salvation, for it induced the English people to avoid pressing further a
conflict between Crown and people, which could only have endangered
the one and demoralised the other. Great as were the restrictions
imposed upon the sovereign's power, his influence was still real, and
might have been dangerous, if unscrupulously used. Eighteenth century
statesmen were so deeply conscious of this fact that they continually
suspect or accuse one another of intriguing in the closet, or of trying to
catch the ear of the King; Walpole spent hours daily in the boudoir
of Queen Caroline, telling her what policy he desired George II to
pursue ; and to the same King's mistress. Lady Yarmouth, Pitt actually
submitted his military plans and the proposed list of his administration.
Such facts draw the curtain aside, and show but too clearly the influence
of court intrigue and of the King's will on the determination of public
policy, and on the rise and fall of Ministries.
Though Anne and the third George did not hesitate to make full
use of their opportunities, the authority of the two first Georges was
exercised with less frequency and efifect by reason of their ignorance of
English parliamentary methods. Nevertheless, in his relations with his
sovereign Walpole was anything but the autocrat that fancy has often
supposed. In 1725, he reluctantly yielded to the royal will and per-
mitted the recall of Bolingbroke to England ; in 1728, he only secured
his power over the new King, George II, by obtaining for him the
substantial gratuity of an additional ,£100,000 yearly for the Civil List.
Subsequently, the favour of the able and enlightened Queen Caroline
assured Walpole's supremacy over the mind of George II ; but her death
in 1787 brought about a visible decline of his influence, which contributed,
in some degree, to his subsequent fall.
If Walpole sometimes found it hard to win over his sovereign, still
less easy did he find it to prevail on his colleagues in the Cabinet or on
his party in the House. More will be said below as to the working
of party government in this period. Here it i^ enough to say that,
though Walpole ruled long, and though his majority was sometimes
large, his tenure of office was never so secure as to enable him to persist
in an unpopular course. On many occasions, he bowed before a storm of
popular abuse, which was sometimes as fleeting as it was violent, and the
usual cause of his surrender was instability, not of conviction, but of
position. From a Minister, who felt himself so unsafe during each one
1714-21] Influence of Jacohitism. 43
of his twenty years of rule, bold initiative and far-reaching reform could
not come. A careful stewardship of the national resources, an unwearied
energy in promoting English industry and commerce, a good-natured
tolerance of rival political and religious opinions, so long as they were not
too extreme — these were the elements of that Walpolian system, which
carried out the Revolution of 1688 to its logical conclusion, by developing
the power of Parliament and assuring the Protestant Succession.
Bolingbroke had thought that England would never submit to be
governed by a German ; and the quiet acceptance of an uninspiring ruler
by a proud and patriotic people, accustomed to kings of marked person-
ality, is one of the wonders of English history. The character and
policy of George I, the scheme of alliances which he reared to prevent
interference from abroad, the errors of the Jacobites which enabled his
Ministers to preserve his regime at home — all these have been discussed
elsewhere. Here, it is needful to touch upon the difficulties of that
energetic clique of Whig oligarchs, who had selected a king for themselves
and who had to force their choice on the reluctant masses of the English
people. The body of James II lay in state in the Church of the Faubourg
St Jacques, imburied and surrounded by flaming tapers, awaiting the day
when the Jacobites could lay it to rest in English earth. They had
some justification for their hope, for the sentiment for the exiled Stewarts
was always strong and often dangerous during the first fifteen years of
the new dynasty. Even after the suppression of the Earl of Mar's rising
in 1715 and the conclusion of the French Alliance of 1717, contemporaries
thought that George I sat, not on a throne, but on a rocking-chair. The
Septennial Act (1717), that extraordinary exercise of power by which the
existing Parliament extended its term to seven years, can only be justified,
as it was obviously prompted, by fear of Jacobite interference. In 1718 the
Bishop of Salisbury quarrelled with his Dean and Chapter, on the groiuid
that their singing " By the waters of Babylon " as an anthem was a sign
of their attachment to the King over the water. In 1721 Floridante,
an opera in which a rightful heir is restored to his own after misfortunes,
was received in London with thunders of applause, not all intended for
the composer, even though he happened to be Handel. More significant
perhaps than any ebullitions of popular feeling is the fact that most
prominent statesmen, even Walpole himself, deemed it prudent to indulge
in secret, if not always sincere, correspondence with the exiled Stewart.
That the Hanoverian Succession became infinitely more secure during
Walpole's tenure of office was, in no small degree, due to his; policy of
cautious temporising, and to his deliberate conviction that, the less he
harassed people with new taxes or new laws, the more likely would they
be to acquiesce in a new dynasty. Tramquilla non movere was his motto
and his policy ; and for the moment it could claim an unusual j^^ustifica-
tion. The country gentry — so powerfully represented in Parliament —
were the most important class attached to the Stewarts, and the most
44 Walpole and the country gentry. — Dissent. [1721-39
innately conservative section of the community; and they could only be
conciliated by the absence of innovation. Hence, though the statute
book during this period is barren, its sterility was more productive of
genuine result than have been some periods of legislative fertility. Old
abuses and a new dynasty alike remained unchanged, and Walpole
tolerated the one to secure the other.
Even in religious policy Walpole suffered his personal views to be de-
termined by his political necessities. After the discovery of the not very
transparent Jacobite treason of Francis Atterbury, Bishop of Rochester
(1721-2), Walpole exacted a special tax from the Catholics to the extent
of ^100,000, on the ground that they had disturbed the country, and
must therefore pay an indemnity. Here, the desire of securing a round
sum in a manner agreeable to the majority of his countrymen over-
powered his love of justice and his notions of policy, for the Exchequer's
gain was the dynasty's loss. But there is no more reason to doubt the
genuine religious tolerance of Walpole than that of the Georges, and
the efforts of King and Minister were mainly instrumental in securing
alleviation for the Dissenters. By the Indemnity Acts, passed annually
from 1727 onwards, Nonconformists, except Catholics, Jews, and Quakers,
were practically relieved from the civil disabilities which a score of
oppressive Acts had imposed. But Walpole's zeal for religious tolerance,
as might be expected, was more practical than theoretical. When measures
were brought forward in Parliament for the more complete relief of
Dissenters (1730, 1734, 1739), he wavered and temporised. He received
meetings of Dissenters in private, sympathised, held out hopes, and
expressed desires ; but he would risk neither his parliamentary majority
nor his personal credit in trying to secure measures of full legal tolerance
for Dissenters from a house full of country squires, to whom the high
church parson was not only a fellow believer but a brother sportsman.
Political considerations and the need of defending the Ministry
entered even into Walpole's dealings with the financial world, that world
which he best understood and where he was best loved. "No man,"
all Lombard Street admitted, "had his equal in figures"; and this
admission was the more remarkable, since some of his best-known
financial schemes were not entirely original. Nevertheless, Walpole was
able to kindle in merchants some of that enthusiasm which Carteret
was to inspire in diplomatists, and Pitt in the people as a whole. He
gauged their wishes with perfect accuracy and knew that the moneyed
classes must be reconciled to the new dynasty by administrative activity,
just as the country gentry were to be won by legislative sloth. The
squire wanted the old laws and the old taxes to remain ; the merchant
wanted new trade regulations, new bounties for his exports, and new
tariffs against his foreign rivals. Walpole was as ready to comply with
the one as with the other, and the most cautious of legislators became the
most daring of financiers. England had possessed great finance Ministers
ivie-s?] Walpole and the Sinking Fund. 45
in Burghley, Montagu, and Godolphin; but no man before Walpole
had ever so comprehensively grasped the whole economic system of
England or had so decisively left his impress upon it. From the very
moment of his accession to office we note a thorough change and
improvement in every department of national finance. His earliest
financial scheme marked the character of future effort, for his plan for the
settlement of the South Sea Company (in which he persisted despite
great opposition) eventually succeeded. He brought the Bank of England
and the East India Company to the rescue of the South Sea Company,
and provided eventually for the sale or redemption of about a quarter
of its stock. It was impossible to restore the South Sea Company to
complete health, but Walpole kept it alive by cordials from the Sinking
Fund until it gained convalescence.
In pure finance the Sinking Fund is at once Walpole's chief achieve-
ment, and the chief illustration of the political difficulties which hampered
his financial reforms. During his first tenure of the Treasury, in the
years 1716-7, he had devised a scheme for reducing the National Debt,
by the formation of an annual sinking fund for the purpose of paying it
off in instalments. There was to be a general reduction of interest on
the various types of national securities (averaging six to five per cent.),
and the surplus thus gained was to be formed into a sinking fund for
the annual reduction of the debt. There is no indication that Walpole
intended this surplus to accumulate at compound interest; and the
comparison between his sinking fund and that of the younger Pitt is
not to Walpole's disadvantage. His sinking fund scheme was actually
introduced by him after he had resigned office in 1717. Its principle was
extended in 1727, when he further reduced the interest on the various
types of national securities (five to four per cent, average), and thereby
raised the contribution to the sinking fund to an average of about a
million a year. The sinking fund contributed directly to debt reduction,
indirectly to the stabihty of public credit. Unfortunately, it formed a
convenient fund to be appropriated or raided in case of necessity. Thus,
for instance, when in 1728 Walpole granted George II one hundred
thousand pounds more for the Civil List than had been allotted to
George I, this addition was to be annually charged on the sinking fund.
This particular instance of a raid on the sinking fund is not to Walpole's
credit, for there can be no doubt that it was connected with his desire to
ingratiate himself with the new King. A still worse, though an unim-
portant, instance of appropriation, occurred in 1729, when the sum of
£4200 (which thieves had stolen from the Exchequer) was made good
from the sinking fund. Other arrangements for diverting the sinking
fund, between 1733 and 1737, are also not very defensible, and incurred
the weighty censure of Adam Smith. Moreover, the genuine fear with
which the increase of the debt was then regarded, which pictured it as
a vampire sucking away the life of the State, as a fell disease slowly
46 Walpole and the Land Tax. [1716-33
subduing its victim, makes these attacks on the sinking fund even less
creditable than they would seem to-day. What was intended to be a
cash reserve was treated as if it were a Fortunatus' purse. But the
matter cannot be settled wholly on economic grounds, for the annual
sinking fund surplus was an almost irresistible temptation to a Minister
like Walpole, who was unwilling to risk an insecure position by imposing
new taxes. The only other way of getting money except by new taxes
was by raising new loans ; but the sinking fund had been intended to
prevent national loans, and direct appropriation from it might avoid a
loan altogether. Such seems to have been the argument, and it is one
which makes Walpole the victim rather than the dupe of circumstance.
It should be remembered, however, to his credit that, while he sometimes
robbed the sinking fund to avoid raising a loan, he never raised a loan
without devoting some part of it to pay ofiF that part of the National
Debt, which bore the highest rate of interest.
If Walpole had been asked for his ideal of a golden year in finance,
he would probably have answered "a year with the sinking fund at a
million and the land tax at a shilling." The land tax was a lucrative
direct tax ; but, if he ventured to raise it, Walpole risked the alienation
of the country gentry, and, not improbably^ his own overthrow, or even
that of the dynasty. All his eiforts could not prevent the land tax from
standing at an annual average of two shillings, though he got it down to
a shilling in 1732-3. Probably with the same view of not irritating
the Stewart-loving squires, Walpole never proposed a reassessment of the
land tax, though such a measure was obviously in the interests of the
National Exchequer and an act of justice to particular districts. The
land tax was borne chiefly by the gentry ; but indirect taxation of the
moneyed classes likewise yielded good results. As Walpole said in his
coarse, humorous way, the landed gentry resembled the hog, squealing
whenever you laid hands on him, while the merchants were like a sheep,
yielding its wool silently. Excise and customs were the two blades
which shore away the commercial fleece. Walpole recognised that
the fleece would be the richer if he could devise effectual checks upon
smuggling. The severest laws and penalties were enacted in vain,
for reasons which are not far to seek. No one who is acquainted with
the traditions of Romney Marsh, or of the Welsh or Cornish coasts,
can think that either Revenue officers or regulations availed against old
traditions, excellent opportunities, and the cooperation of whole country-
sides in the extensive industry of smuggling. The chaos was inde-
scribable ; the regulations were waste paper ; the Exchequer must have
lost hundreds of thousands yearly. Walpole's only chance of reducing
the smuggling was either to lessen the huge customs duties on tea, coifee,
and wine, or to replace these duties by excises, which should be
chargeable on the commodities sold for home consumption. In 1724, he
introduced an excise in the place of customs duties on tea and coflfee ;
1732-3] Walpoles Excise Scheme. 47
but, though the result increased the revenue, he was very cautious about
extending the principle. In 1782, he revived the excise on salt, and on
March 14, 17S3, he opened his famous Excise Scheme in the House of
Commons. It simply consisted in the imposition of an excise on wine
and tobacco, which was to be levied on the goods after they had been
placed in English warehouses, in order that the chief possibilities of
smuggling might be prevented. Besides this, there was a further plan of
allowing all raw materials to receive a drawback on reexportation, and
thus make London a "free port" and the market of the world. This
scheme, he contended, would increase the revenue and benefit the honest
trader at the expense of the smuggler.
There had been ominous mutterings already; now there were loud
cries of indignation. Pulteney led the opposition in the Commons,
denouncing the excise as a monster, as injurious to liberty, as the
greatest exercise of arbitrary power ever attempted by a tyrant. A
vast mob surged round Westminster Hall, penetrated to the Court of
Requests and the Lobby, howled insults at the Ministers, and tried to
tear Walpole from his carriage as he left St Stephen's. Pamphlets of
the coarsest abuse and the wildest imagination abounded; mobs paraded
the streets ; Walpole was burnt in effigy in dozens of bonfires. People
saw in imagination the tyrannical excise officers entering the Englishman's
castle, and beheld Magna Carta trampled beneath the feet of merciless
uniformed bureaucrats. Jacobites openly spoke of the return of the
Stewart; Whigs whispered that they would resist excise officers by
force of arms. Though the Venetian ambassador wrote that the pension
list was increasing, Walpole's majorities diminished, the tables in the
Commons were weighed down with petitions. Ministerial speakers were
hissed and abused in the lobbies, howled down when they rose to speak
in the Commons. Queen Caroline feared for the loyalty of the army and
the safety of the dynasty, and gave a tearful consent to the abandon-
ment of the Bill. After the session of April 10, Walpole announced this
decision in a short speech to a private meeting of his supporters — " This
dance, it wiU no further go." The words disguised his emotion, and
observers noted that his voice trembled and that his eyes fiUed with
tears. The abandonment of a cherished scheme of finance probably
meant as much to this coarse-fibred man as the failure of a negotiation
to Carteret, or the loss of a regiment to Pitt.
That Walpole, cautious and placable, would not persist in a scheme
which threatened him, that he refused to "enforce taxes at the price of
blood," is not surprising. The whole course of this movement illustrates
the strange and feverish agitations which sometimes suddenly gripped
the English people during this century, disorganising policies, changing
Ministries, and making England's Governments a proverb for fickleness
and an object of pity to foreign diplomats. But the Sacheverell agita-
tion, the South Sea Bubble, the putcry against Wood's Halfpence, the
48 Failure of the Exdse Scheme. [1732-3
Jenkins' Ear frenzy, the Porteous riots — all these are, to some extent,
more intelligible than the tempest which raged over the excise. It is a
commonplace among modem historians that there was nothing in the
actual scheme to cause alarm, that the measures proposed were at once
just and practicable, and that, half a century later, they were, in large
part, adopted by the younger Pitt without protest from anybody and
with an enormous resultant gain to the revenue. But the circumstances
of the time must be considered — the genuine hatred of unjustifiable
state interference that existed among all parties, the real belief in
the rights of liberty and property in their narrow and individualistic
sense. Moreover Walpole's actions and utterances on the excise question
looked somewhat equivocal ; before 1732, he seems to have supported the
principle of an excise on salt, because it imposed a small duty on a
necessary which all could pay ; in 1733, he seems to have advocated the
excise on wine and tobacco, on the ground that these were luxuries on
which a few paid. That the agitation was, in a large measure, fictitious,
that the Opposition arguments were due partly to pure malice, and
partly to impure self-interest, ought not to obscure the fact that Walpole's
actions gave cause for suspicion. Why, asked his opponents, why did he
revive the salt excise and reduce the land tax to a shilling in 1732,
unless he had in contemplation a scheme of general excise for 1733 .-*
In introducing the excise scheme, he declared roundly that he had no
intention of extending the excise to articles such as bread or common
necessaries, and that no such scheme as a general excise had ever entered
his head. That posterity accepts his assurances without question is not
necessarily a reason why, contemporaries should have shown the same
recognition and confidence.
After the failure of the great Excise Scheme, Walpole seems to have
lost interest, as well he might, in the essentially internal problems of
trade and finance. The regulation of internal industry, the inspec-
tions to secure purity of goods, and the like, fell into some disuse in his
later years, and he made no serious attempt to better the condition
of industrial or agricultural workers. Indeed, the masters were supreme
in the Commons, and Walpole would never have imperilled his own
interests for the workers, against whom various Acts prohibiting com-
bination were passed in this period. It may be urged that this epoch
was the golden age of English agriculture, that the rate of industrial
wages, relative to that in other times, has seldom stood higher, and that
the worst evils of the capitalised industrial system were still to come.
There can be little doubt, moreover, that Walpole genuinely believed
the development of capitalism to be the source of all wealth and the
remedy for all evils. Agriculture, manufactures and commerce, in this
view, could be best improved by capitalistic development, for, as nothing
else so quickly increased the sum total of national wealth, nothing else
could provide so effectual or so speedy a remedy for poverty, unemploy-
1716-42] Walpole's economic policy. 49
inent, in a word for all economic ills. Hence the Corn Bounty Act of
1690, which had encouraged the capitalistic landowner at the expense
of the yeoman, was now supplemented by bounties on exported manu-
factures, which gave advantage to the merchant with the large purse
over the merchant with the small.
Mercantilism — of which Walpole was a convinced disciple — assumed
that the State should stimulate national wealth, to the best of its,
ability. An export bounty had already been applied to corn by the
Com Bounty Act of 1689, and there had been a few export bounties
upon manufactures ; but these were now extended as a matter of
general principle. Bounties and encouragements given to English-made
gunpowder, worked silk, sailcloth, and refined sugar, attest the wide and
diverse range of his efforts. Characteristically, he made no change in
the bounties affecting the landed gentry, but bent all his energies to
assisting the commercial classes. But with Walpole, as with all true
mercantilists, it was not enough to bring the State to the assistance of
those industries which most obviously increased national wpalth : it was
necessary to encourage and support others, which increased national power.
Bounties were given on whale fisheries in Greenland and on herring
busses in the North Sea ; subsidies flowed out to great trading companies
in Africa, in the Baltic, or in the Levant, to encourage our sailors to
seek distant seas, and to create a large commercial marine as a reserve
from which the royal navy could be indefinitely increased. Under
Walpole, the navy itself was not only kept up at its full standard, but
the number of ships was even increased, though its administration lefl;
much to be desired. It is worthy of note that, except in cases where
the object was purely to increase national power, Walpole seems to
have granted bounties, drawbacks, and the like, not with the view of
protecting infant industries at home, but in order to enable well-grown
industries to capture foreign trade. Such a policy flowed necessarily from
the ideas of the age ; for, as the tariflp wall was supposed to be high
enough to enable England to retain her internal trade, an increase to her
external trade was the only way of adding to the store of national
wealth. Thus it was on commerce, that, as the King's Speech of 1721
put it, " the riches and grandeur of this nation chiefly depended."
Every effort was used to develop commerce, and to secure a favourable
balance of trade — attempts which often began in commercial and ended
in actual warfare, for the tariff- war was often the precursor of the trade-
war, and, where the duty failed, the sword might succeed. The Methuen
Treaty with Portugal in 1703, thp commercial clauses of the Peace of
Utrecht in 1713, were universally regarded as concessions to English
trade which only arms, or the threat of arms, could have extorted.
Much as Walpole himself loved peace, he was at one time ready to go to
war with the Emperor, unless he abolished the Ostend Company — which
threatened a formidable rivalry with England's East India Company.
C. M. H. VI. CH. ir. *
50 I'he balance of trade. Colonial policy. [1720-40
The balance of trade actually became as great a fetish as the balance of
power, and demanded from its votaries as many sacrifices and as much
blood. In 1721, the King's Speech referred to the necessity of securing a
"favourable balance of trade" by increasing our commerce. It proposed,
as the most effectual means towards this end, to facilitate the import
of foreign raw materials and the export of home manufactures. In
accordance with this principle, the export duties, which had weighed
heavily on the development of our external trade, were almost entirely
swept away, with the exception of that upon white woollen cloth. At
the same time and on the same principle, while import duties on manu-
factures were rigidly maintained or even raised, those on raw materials
were almost totally abolished. Walpole was far too wise not to under-
stand that a too rigid system of monopoly defeats itself, and that his
repeal of duties on incoming raw materials would allow a far freer
circulation to capital and to trade.
The great aim of Walpole's policy, whether we look to his tariffs
against foreign or his bounties on home manufactures, was to secure a
favourable balance of trade. Mercantilists held that, in commercial
dealings between two countries, one nation invariably got the best of the
bargain. The balance between the imports and exports of England to
Holland, in the years 1720-2 for example, indicated according to the
figures that England had gained =^1 ,526,682 in the three years. It was
believed that a good deal of this amount had passed in hard gold to
England, though the figures were in any case somewhat dubious, and
important factors were entirely omitted from consideration. The chief
defect of the theory was that each particular country was isolated, and
treated as an economic island : thus, in the case of a country like Holland,
through which German goods filtered, England's tariff for Dutch goods
remained intact because the balance was favourable to her, whereas the
German share in effecting that result was entirely ignored. The rigidity
with which this theory of balance of trade was held at this time, is of
great importance, because it helps to explain the great and increasing
attention which England paid to her plantations and colonies. The
course of trade, as well as of empire, set westward. Joshua Gee, the
most popular mercantilist writer of the age, corrected the official figures
from the best evidence, and showed that, in reality, the trade balance
from the Continent obstinately inclined against England. In her colonies
the case was otherwise ; they are, wrote Horace Walpole the elder, a wise
and experienced statesman, "the source of all our riches, and which
preserve the balance of trade in our favour, for I don't know where
we have it but by the means of our colonies"; and this conclusion
found general acceptance. Investments of colonial money in English
concerns, and the like, together with actual cash remittances, were probably
the real cause of this favourable balance, but no means, whether by legis-
lation or regulation, were left untried to produce it.
1720-50] The old Colonial System. 51
A scheme clearly floated in Sir Robert Walpole's head, of making
a self-sufficing empire, to which the colonies would supply raw materials
and the mother country manufactures. The bargain was not entirely
unequal. It is true that the British merchant got Parliament to forbid
the colonies to manufacture those articles which threatened to compete
with his own manufactures. Such prohibitions were extended during this
period to copper smelting (1722) and the manufacture of hats (1732); but,
insomuch as the colonies were as yet chiefly agricultural, these measures
seem to have caused comparatively little grievance till 1750. In the
period 1720-50, certain commodities — ^tobacco, indigo, dyeing woods, rice,
molasses, sugar, furs, copper ore — were " enumerated," i.e. were not allowed
to be exported from the colonies, except to England and the other colonies.
In passing through England they were obliged to pay duties ; and this
burden, together with the restriction to English markets, reacted un-
favourably on colonial manufactures. At the same time there was some
retvu^n for this injustice — bounties were given on many materials which
the colonies produced, various exceptions were made and relaxations
permitted. In 1721, in order that England's naval stores might be
obtained from the colonies rather than from the Baltic, bounties were
given on various kinds of naval materials which the colonies might
supply, and all their hemp, timber and lumber were allowed to come in
duty free. To encourage the colonial fishing industries, salt was allowed
to be imported from any part of Europe directly to Pennsylvania (1727)
and to New York (1730). In 1729 the rice of Carolina, which had
hitherto, as an "enumerated" commodity, been forced to touch at an
English port and pay a duty, was allowed to proceed direct to any part
of Europe south of Cape Finisterre, subject to the payment in Gtreat
Britain of the amount equal to English duties less the drawback. The
principle was also extended to the new colony of Georgia in 1735, with
the result that the colonial growers speedily ousted the rice of India and
of Egypt from Mediterranean markets. In 1739 the same principle was
applied to sugar from the colonies with a corresponding increase to their
sugar trade with southern Europe. Meanwhile, the English manufacturer
rubbed his hands, the greater the wealth of the colonists through the
sale of raw materials, the more would they be obliged to purchase of the
English manufacturers. The preamble to the Rice Act of 1729 expressed
this conception in a somewhat nobler way, by declaring that the prosperity
of the colony must be considered as well as that of the mother country.
The scheme of a self-sufiicing economic empire — which appears in
this period — is of peculiar interest. The policy which put it into
execution afterwards brought upon itself the denunciation of Adam
Smith, on the ground that there had been an entire sacrifice of colonial
interests to those of the mother country. Indeed, it can hardly be denied
that the object of the policy was to procure a " favourable balance " to
England, whatever might happen to colonial trade, and that, in this
■i-2
52 Navigation Act. — "Molasses" Act. [1662-1750
sense, the policy was really adverse to the colonies. But, when that
balance was once secured, encouragements could be really given to the
colonies. The economic interests of the colonies were, therefore, in
some degree, subordinated to those of the mother country ; but they
were not absolutely disregarded. The encouragements given to colonial
raw material were a direct gain to the colonial producers, to English
manufacturers only an indirect one. Again, in certain cases, as in the
prohibition of tobacco-growing in England and Ireland, the home
producers were sacrificed to the interests of planters in Virginia and
Maryland. In addition, the Navigation Act of 1662 forced all foreign
goods from Asia, Africa, or America to be imported in bottoms that
were British — a designation which covered colonial as well as English
ships. Under the influence of this Act and designation many of the
colonies, especially those of New England, had created veritable com-
mercial fleets of their own. Thus, in this respect, they benefited largely
as against the foreigner ; and their gain from the shipping and the
bounties was a great compensation for the loss occasioned by the
restrictions on certain colonial manufactures. It is diflicult to estimate
that loss, because, as was inevitable, a vast illicit trade sprang up, which
was systematically connived at by the mother country, and, in those
good easy days, a kind-hearted Government at home and tolerant
ofiicials in the colonies often did away with much actual injustice.
Nevertheless, the theoretical grievance remained ; and, when any
dispute between the interests of colony and mother country came up
for public settlement, it was not the latter who suflfered. For instance,
though encom-agement was given to colonial raw sugar, a high duty was
placed against their refined sugar for the benefit of the sugar refineries of
England proper. Again, in 1733, the British sugar colonies petitioned
Parliament, because the New England colonies were importing sugar
and other commodities from the French and Dutch sugar isles, to the
detriment of the British colonial sugar trade. Parliament contained
many persons with interests or estates in British West Indian islands,
not so many with a stake in New England; accordingly, it replied by the
famous "Molasses Act," imposing heavy duties on foreign sugar, rum
and molasses imported into British plantations. The preamble falsely
stated that her sugar isles were the mainstay of England's commerce, but,
even if they were, their chief industry was not in sugar but in slaves. Had
the "Molasses Act" ever been seriously enforced, the economic grievances
of New England would have been heavy ; fortunately, its application was
lax, and the cloud, for the moment, passed. Nevertheless, the Act made
it clear that, when the interests of colonies and mother country formally
conflicted, those of the former had to give way. The economic grievances
under which the colonies laboured at this time were probably not as yet
serious, except in theory ; until 1750 the prohibitions on colonial manu-
factures caused comparatively little inconvenience; the Molasses Act
1733-50] The Colonial Manufactures Prohibition Act. 53
was inoperative, the bounties and the Navigation Acts favoured the
colonies. It would seem that the various restrictions were felt but
slightly in communities that were primarily agricultural, and whose
political self-consciousness was immature. It was not the presence of
oppression, but the absence of foresight, which was the evil ; tranquilla
non movere was perhaps a policy for Old England — it was hardly such for
New. The industrial developments and the increase of population, which
were completely transforming the more northerly American colonies, were
putting the old colonial system out of date ; and the policy of drift served
for the moment, though it was fatal for the future. Moreover, colonial
grievances were aggravated by the fact that the French treated their
colonies with more insight and sympathy, and deferred more obviously
to their trade interests. During this period a judicious spirit of modera-
tion, shown by the various concessions in bounties and the like, the con-
nivance at the irregular trade, appeased colonial discontent ; but there
were not wanting signs of that intense resentment of a grievance, always
in theory acute, and destined to become, in no distant hour, a deep cause
of that internecine strife which tore asunder the Anglo-Saxon race.
Such was the Colonial System as Walpole left it ; but our view of it
would be incomplete, if we did not anticipate the developments which
took place after his fall. It was evident that the demands of English and
colonial merchants must sometimes conflict, and that, as one side had the
ear of Parliament and the other had not, the latter must suffer. No
Minister in the eighteenth century found it easy to resist parliamentary
supporters, and only the utmost amount of prudence, or of far-seeing
statesmanship, could have averted this result. Unfortunately, neither was
at hand in the crucial year 1750, which is a milestone in colonial policy.
In that year, English ironmasters clamoured against the colonial competi-
tion, and Henry Pelham decided to appease them by an Act, exactly as
Walpole had appeased English capitalists, with West Indian interests, by
the Molasses Act of 1733. The Colonial Manufactures Prohibition Act of
1750 sternly forbade the manufacture of bar or pig-iron in the American
colonies, and provided for the abolition of colonial slitting-mills, tilt-
hammers, and iron furnaces. The measure was to be rendered palatable
by the granting of a preference to colonial raw iron as against continental,
i.e. by the removal of duties on colonial bar and pig-iron, though these
duties were retained on iron from the Baltic and elsewhere. But the
concession was useless ; the preamble of the Act announced that the pro-
duction of raw iron was to be encouraged in the colonies, and its working
prohibited, in each case for the benefit of the English manufacturer.
This conception — familiar to English statesmen and statutes — was now
at last brought home to the colonies, for, while earlier Acts had either
been inoperative or had caused little practical grievance, the new Act
was effective and obnoxious from the beginning. The old Acts had
applied to young countries primarily agricultural, and rich only in raw
54 Political and economic conditions in the Colonies. [1732-83
materials ; the new Act bore hardly on countries which were beginning to
be industrial ; and it was unfortunate that Puritan New England was
now the home of colonial industry, as it had always been of colonial
independence. It was easy to put out a New Englander's furnace, but
the act lit a smouldering fire in his heart, for he now realised — in his
own case and for the first time — that the commercial interests of a
colony must be sacrificed to those of the mother land, and arguments as
to the tyranny of tariifs easily led a Puritan community on to arguments
about the tyranny of kings.
In his speech in 1749 Pelham declared himself a foe to monopoly
and a disbeliever in the efficacy of human regulation to stay the currents
of labour or of trade. His successors were to find that, while it is
hard to check economic movements, it is easy to arouse political, and
that the date 1750, which marks the beginning of industrial strife
between Old and New England, is, in its way, as significant as 1783,
which marks the close of military conflict. There is no indication that
Pelham realised that colonial policy was entering on a new phase, and
the Molasses Act is an apparent anticipation of the Colonial Manufactures
Prohibition Act. The wisdom, which refused to enforce the one, and the
energy, which made the other practicable, are characteristic of Walpole
and Pelham. Neither had the genius and imagination to see the dawn
of the new day ; but, at least, Walpole was not responsible for the more
portentous change in policy.
Politically, the colonies had few gi-ievances to allege until 1760, for
most of them were governed on principles more liberal than any known
or practised elsewhere. Newcastle, otherwise energetic enough, was justly
accused by the elder Horace Walpole of neglect of colonial business,
though his attention to it was greater than has sometimes been supposed.
Sir Robert Walpole contented himself with economic interference, and is
said to have waved aside the not infrequent suggestion for taxing the
colonies with this sentence of shrewd and homely wisdom : " I have Old
England set against me for taxes, do you think I will have New England
likewise .'"' Outside Downing Street, there were signs that the importance
of colonial politics was increasing, that the conception of colonies as the
local branches of a central business firm was giving way before ideas
less mercantile and more political. Colonial particularism grew; local
patriotism stirred ; possession of vast trade was ceasing to be the one
source of colonial pride or existence ; pride of territory or of race was
beginning, England herself witnessed Berkeley's great scheme for plant-
ing a spiritual Utopia in the Bermudas, and beheld the dream, whose
ideal was to provide a money-ridden empire with a conscience, end with
a present of books to a poverty-stricken library. About the time (1732)
when the failure of Berkeley's scheme was announced, the new colony of
Georgia was founded, on a scheme which appealed more to the aspirations
of the patriot than to the desires of the business man. The scheme, in
Walpoles economic policy as a whole. 55
brief, was a charitable device for settling poor emigrants in a new land ;
it was started by private charity and aided by contributions from the
state exchequer. There wanted not noble patrons of the Georgian
plantation, and the King himself had smiled upon Berkeley's plan ; but
Walpole was indifferent, if not actually hostile, to both, and his delay in
paying Berkeley the sums promised by the Treasury certainly virecked
the Bermudas venture. For the gentle religious idealism of Berkeley
was almost as suspect to this genial materialist, as were any political
schemes which looked for economic support to the State and to the
future instead of to shareholders. It would be wrong to deny that
the conception of an empire, based on an economic unity, floated before
England's vision as before that of France ; but Walpole conceived that
unity, in the main, as resting on the broad interests of the mother land,
while the French conception implied a bond of mutual benefit and
obligation. Walpole recognised what appeared to be, the French what
ought to have been, the facts ; neither saw the facts as they really were.
Walpole's aim was mainly economic, and his calculations were therefore
too short — ^the French mainly political and their calculations therefore
too long ; in the one case the ideals were too low, in the other too high.
Both schemes ended in disaster; but Walpole was nearer to the facts,
and hence, when the catastrophe came, France lost all, and England
only half, of the North American continent.
Walpole's economic policy, though everywhere defeated and marred
by political considerations, has nevertheless a remarkable unity and
harmony of aim. The Sinking Fund, which was to redeem the National
Debt ; the excise policy, which was to destroy smuggling ; the colonial
policy, which was to unite the Empire — all these achieved useful results,
though political necessities sadly restricted and hampered their operation.
Elsewhere, Walpole had a freer hand, and won such decisive success in
his policy of encouragements to English trade, of placing tariffs on
foreign manufactures and taking duties off foreign raw materials, that he
might claim to be the first of financiers, if the evidence either of figures
or contemporaries could pass without criticism. Walpole had pro-
duced a system which was a model of balance and consistency ; he had
imposed his bounties and prohibitions for short periods, and had made
constant revision and adaptation of the tariff the very essence of his
policy. Unhappily, the system was never simple, and its increasing
elaboration and complexity prevented speedy revision, and annually
increased the strength of the vested interests concerned. Under his
successors, Walpole's system fared badly: bounties, once imposed to
develop living, remained to prolong the agonies of dying, trades ; pro-
hibitions formerly effective became meaningless ; the empiricism of one
age had become the dogmatism of the next, with the result that con-
tradiction, contusion, obsolescence reigned everywhere. Under these
66 Adam Smith and the old Colonial System.
conditions, the system which Walpole had fathered encountered the most
brilliant and destructive criticism that economic science has known.
Adam Smith's attacks on the Mercantilist System require some
qualification, for they fail to do justice to the ideals and objects which
it pursued, nor do they recognise that, because that system had ceased
to be of service in 1776, it was not necessarily an anachronism under
Walpole. Adam Smith undoubtedly proved that the system was not
the easiest way of increasing national wealth ; but Walpole would have
replied that, none the less, it was the easiest and perhaps the only way
to secure national power and wealth at the same time. Adam Smith
rightly contended that colonial trade had been overdeveloped to the
detriment of foreign; but this view marked a revolution in economic
theory, so that a practical business man like Walpole may be excused for
acquiescing in a view almost universal even among theorists in his own
day. So long as the balance of trade was a fetish, it was only reasonable
to develop trade with the colonies, where that balance could be regulated
so as to be especially favourable to the mother land.
On the more purely economic side, however, some aspects of Walpole's
policy are open to severe criticism, even after every allowance has been
made. Thus, for example, the production of corn was encoiuraged by
bounty to the detriment of turnip and grass cultivation, and at the expense
of the small farmer; in other cases, one industry was selected for encourage-
ment, without regard being paid to the fact that such forcing might have a
bad effect on other industries indirectly associated with it. An industry —
like a country — was regarded as an economic island, with results often
serious in each case. Such measures, however erroneous in theory, were
still more erroneous in fact ; and the criticism of the practical man would
be more severe than that of the theorist. The main evil of the system,
however, was that it tended to monopoly, and monopoly always has its
victims and its penalties; but Walpole's resolute insistence on the
principle that raw materials from foreign lands should enter English ports
duty free prevented the price exacted from being higher. His errors
resulted from a too complete adoption of mercantilist theory, which made
him as much the idol of contemporaries as it has rendered him the
target of subsequent criticism. But, after every deduction has been
made, when we regard the immense range and scale of his achievement,
he must be deemed worthy to rank beside the great financier at the
beginning, and the great financier at the close, of his century. It is an
irony in which Swift would have delighted that the white staff of Lord
High Treasurer, bestowed thrice during the eighteenth century, was never
grasped by the hand either of Montagu, of Walpole, or of Pitt, whose
supreme financial talents most justly entitled them to that reward.
During the earlv years of his government, Walpole exercised com-
paratively little intiuance over foreign policy, though he kept a watchful
1717-25] Fordgn policy. 57
eye from the Treasury on subsidies and commercial negotiations. For
our purpose, England's foreign policy begins in the early twenties, when
Townshend was First Foreign Secretary, and when the diplomatic world
was yawning over the Congress of Cambray. England was still reaping
the fruits of her French alliance of 1717, which, combined with a resolute
diplomacy, had given her German ruler, in the years that followed, a
diplomatic position no less commanding than that which her Dutch
"Deliverer" had enjoyed. George I had mediated between Emperor and
Sultan in 1718, and had been the arbiter of the Baltic in 1721 ; at the
Congress of Cambray, summoned for 1722, he seemed about to settle the
affairs of Habsburg and Spanish Bourbon, as he had settled those of
Turkey and Sweden, and to become the universal pacificator of Europe.
Unfortunately, George Ts resemblance to William III was now to cease,
and, after giving the law to the east and to the north, he was to
suffer a diplomatic defeat in the west. English diplomatists thought
that the beginning of the Congress of Cambray was too dull — they
discovered that its end was too exciting. Under the influence of the
fiery Elisabeth Famese, Queen of Spain, who blamed England and
France for the endless delays of the Congress, Spain and the Emperor
drew together ; and these two disputants, for whose reconciliation France
and her ally Great Britain had, in the end, laboured, made a formal
agreement to unite against the peacemakers. The Treaty of Peace signed
at Vienna by Austrian and Spanish representatives on April SO, 1725,
announced to the world the reconciliation of the two quondam rivals, and,
as a consequence, the dissolution of the Congress and the discomfiture of
Fi-ance and of England. George I, formerly the arbiter of Europe, found
his projects dissolved in air, and himself threatened by a positive danger.
He had only the dubious friendship of France on which to rely, and an
Austro-Spanish combination might have to be met in the field.
The chief aspects of the Vienna Treaties are described elsewhere, but
their English side concerns us here. The Treaty of Peace of April SO
had announced that Spain had accepted the Pragmatic Sanction (thus
guaranteeing the complete succession to the Austrian possessions of the
Emperor's daughter, Maria Theresa). Two supplementary and secret
Treaties, of Alliance and Commerce respectively, signed on May 1, bound
the Emperor Charles VI, in return, to use his good offices to induce
England to surrender Gibraltar and Minorca to Spain, and engaged the
Spanish Government to encourage and assist the Emperor in developing
the commerce of the Austrian Netherlands, and in promoting the Ostend
Company, a corporation already licensed with a view to trading in the
East Indies. These provisions were alarming enough ; but the sense of
danger was increased by a further, and most secret, agreement between the
two Powers (November S, 1725), which provided, in certain eventualities,
for marriages between two Austrian Archduchesses and two Spanish
Infants. A secret article arranged for a partition of French territory
68 Effects of the Treaty of Vienna. [i725
between the Habsburg and the Spanish Bourbon, in case they defeated
France in war. English diplomats persisted in thinking (quite incorrectly)
that there was another secret clause arranging for the joint support of
James Edward's claims to the English Crown. English popular opinion
was thoroughly alarmed, as a passage in a pamphlet published near this
date shows : " The Archduchesses are destined to the Infants of Spain,
and such a Power arising from this conjunction, as in all probability may
make the rest of Europe tremble." Clearly, the wedding-bells of Austria
and Spain were the passing-bells for England and for France. The
Peace of Utrecht, which had asserted the balance of power by separating
the Crowns of France and Spain, would have been in vain, if Europe
was to be overshadowed by a Spanish- Austrian alliance, and threatened
by a union of the forces of the two monarchies. In that case the balance
of power was overthrown once more. France saw Austria and Spain
dominating Italy, and their armies on the road to Paris ; England beheld
Spanish fleets ravaging the coast of Scotland, and Austrian merchantmen
sailing up the Hooghly. A common danger threatened the allies of
1717, which only resolution could meet. It was necessary to face the
Austro-Spanish danger; and, though French diplomacy was wavering,
Townshend was not the man to hesitate. The substance of the secret
articles had filtered through to the British public, and England, touched
in her pride by the Gibraltar, in her pocket by the Ostend, article, was
ready to support her Minister.
The instructions issued by Townshend to Stanhope at Madrid on
June 28 (O.S.), 1725, after the Emperor had formally announced
his wish to mediate between England and Spain on the subject of
Gibraltar, mark the proud and resolute character of his policy. " The
Imperialists are thoroughly sensible of the great fondness the Parliament
and even the whole nation have for Gibraltar ; they likewise know that
by our laws and Constitution the Crown cannot yield to any foreign Power
whatsoever any part of his dominions without consent of Parliament, and
that Gibraltar being yielded to Great Britain, by the Treaty of Utrecht,
is as much annexed to the Crown as Ireland, or any part of England ;
they are also convinced, that even the bare proposing the delivering up
this place to the Parliament will put the King's affairs into the utmost
confusion, and therefore are sure the King is not to be prevailed upon
to mention it to them. They are in like manner persuaded that all the
discerning men in England are at this juncture so irritated with the
slights, and indignities that have been put upon the King's mediation
by the Crown of Spain and the injuries done the nation by the Treaty
of Commerce, lately concluded by Spain with the Emperor at Vienna, in
which amongst other things, there are so many manifest favours and
partialities shown to the Ostend Company, that iJiey are firmly persuaded
if they could by their dexterity throw in, at this time, the affair of
Gibraltar it would raise such a flame in the nation as would certainly bring
things to the greatest extremities between the two Crowns, and this is
1725^30] Townshend's Alliance. — Spain declares war. 59
beyond all dispute, the point at which the Emperor does at present drive."
It is difficult to read this passage without perceiving that it vibrates
with a national and patriotic feeling rare indeed in this age.
But, though Townshend relied on national feeling to support him, he
was not blind to the further necessity of dynastic alliances. So early as
February 4, 1725, when the Austro-Spanish union was first suspected,
Newcastle, the Second Secretary of State, had suggested that it could be
countered by a league of Northern Powers, a policy which Townshend
now adopted in full. Proceeding to the Continent, he signed the Alliance
of Hanover (or Herrenhausen ; September 3, 1725) between England,
France and Prussia, in order to provide guarantees of mutual defence, to
arrange for the destruction of the Ostend Company, and to form a union
which should balance the overwhelming predominance of the Austro-
Spanish alliance. Frederick William I of Prussia showed duplicity, and,
after hesitating for about a year, finally retired altogether from the
Hanover Alliance and made an agreement at Wusterhausen with the
Emperor (October 12, 1726). But, by a lavish use of bribes and subsidies
which caused growls from Walpole at the Treasury, the complicated
network of a vast alliance was gradually woven together. Imposing
demonstrations were made to impress the smaller Powers ; French troops
were massed on the Rhine; English fleets paraded up and down the
Channel, the Spanish coast, the Baltic, and the Caribbean Sea. Sweden
and Denmark came into the Alliance ; the Landgrave of Hesse-Cassel and
other smaller German Princes were also swept into the net. In 1727
Europe was an armed camp. France had raised nearly 100,000 additional
troops, Holland 30,000, Denmark and Sweden were prepared to contribute
handsomely. On the sea France and England were enormously superior,
and, though on the land the Emperor and Spain had the predominance
in mere numbers, the treasury of the former was wholly empty, that of
the latter wofully bare. An alliance more formidable, because more
united, than that which had defeated Louis XIV and Philip V was now
facing this same Philip and his new Imperial ally, and, as the main
architect of the first structure had been William III, so the main
contriver of the second was Townshend.
The need of disbursing large sums for Townshend's subsidies and
bribes seems to have awakened Walpole, who from this time forward
exercised considerable influence in foreign affairs. Townshend resented
his interference, and there were many quaiTels before the final one of
1730. The strength and use of the Alliance were soon tested, for Spain
(to whom Townshend's alliances and despatches must have been alike
objectionable) declared war against England in February, 1727. The
value of Townshend's diplomacy was speedily revealed, for the Emperor
was far too impressed with the power of the counter-combination to join
his ally. Gibraltar endured a languid siege; but the chief interest lay in
the stopping of the Spanish treasure Heet. If Spain could get home her
60 Treaty of Seville. [1726-33
usual amount of bullion, she might bribe her Imperial ally into action.
To prevent this eventuality, Admiral Hosier had been blockading Porto-
bello in the West Indies so early as September, 1726; and in 1727
Sir Charles Wager cruised up and down the Spanish coast for the same
purpose. They did not succeed in stopping the treasure fleet; but the
Spaniards managed to bring only a small part of the usual supply of
bullion into Cadiz. Since there was no decisive action at sea, and as each
belligerent had a pacific and timorous ally on her flank urging her to peace,
an accommodation was soon reached. Hostilities were suspended at the
end of 1727, not very much to the taste of the English people — "it's
like God's peace ; it's both long in coming and passes all understanding,"
wrote a witty lady to Lord Carlisle ; in fact, there supervened, as usual,
tedious delays, solemn trifling, and ineffective congresses. This time a
settlement was ultimately arranged, owing to the sudden interference of
Elisabeth Famese, whose policy was always unconventional and some-
times, as in this case, highly effective. In December, 1728, Elisabeth
had learnt that the project of Austrian marriages was ruled out on
the Austrian side. She was furious, and determined on revenge. In 1725
she had rejected the friendship of France and Great Britain for that
of the Emperor ; now, in her bitter anger, she reversed the process. On
November 9, 1729, the representatives of England, France, and Spain
signed at Seville a Treaty, which they agreed to force on the Emperor.
The two allies, neatly profiting by Elisabeth's anger against the Emperor,
induced Spain to grant, for the first time, a frank and ungrudging
recognition of the full consequences of the Treaty of Utrecht, in so far
as it secured commercial advantages to England and to France, and
the English possession of Gibraltar. In retiu^n, England and France
promised to aid in the introduction of Spanish garrisons into Tuscany and
Parma. These stipulations, together with the suppression of the Ostend
Company, were eventually ratified by the Emperor in the ("Second")
Treaty of Vienna (July 22, 1 731 ). This agreement marks the culminating
point of the union between England and France, and the greatest material
advantage derived by the former from that alliance: namely, the final
abolition of the Ostend Company.
The Treaty of Seville is a landmark in the history of diplomacy, more
decisive and important than the Padie defamiUe of 1733. It marks the
breakdown of one new combination — the Austro-Spanish Alliance, and
the beginning of the collapse of another — the IVanco-British. The
Confusion introduced by the Peace of Utrecht was beginning to dis-
appear, and events were gradually reverting to the European System
at the beginning of the eighteenth century — ^that of a union between
France and Spain, opposed by the combination of England, Hollapd, and
the Emperor. Townshend, who had specially favoured friendship with
France and had looked coldly on the Emperor, was dismissed in 1730 ;
and, from 1731 onwards, the estrangement between England and France
172&-31] Separation of England from France. 61
becomes evident and decisive. When historical writers speak of the
" Hundred Years' War between England and France on the sea," which
lasted from the days of the third William to those of the third George,
they omit the interlude of fourteen years (1717-31), when England and
France were not only at peace but in alliance. During this period there
was a real chance that the two nations, by careful avoidance of difficulties
and by joint pressure upon Spain, might pursue lines of territorial expan-
sion and commercial development, which ran close to one another, but
never intersected. When England began to draw back from this alliance,
her position was fundamentally altered, and the old forces, hitherto
suspended in their action, began again to exert their influence.
A new age now opens for English diplomacy: national influences
strengthen, dynastic ones weaken. The place of the resolute, adroit
Townshend with his eye ever on the least movement among the Princes of
Germany, is taken by the fussy, impulsive Newcastle, with his ear carefully
trained to public opinion in England. Hanover, King George, and the
Balance of Power fall in importance ; the South Sea Company, the West
Indies and the Balance of Trade rise. Newcastle, now Principal Secretary,
was without steadiness though not without insight ; but he was steadied
by William Stanhope (Lord Harrington), whose skill in negotiating the
Treaty of Seville had been rewarded by a peerage and the seals of the
second Secretaryship of State, Behind the pair stood Walpole, whose
calm judgment, shrewd wisdom, and increased prestige now gave him
an influence in foreign afiairs, to which he had never before attained,
Both by predilection and by the pressure of the forces behind them —
popular, commercial, parliamentary — Newcastle and Stanhope were
driven to the new policy which Townshend had denounced with his
last diplomatic breath. That policy was one of accommodation with the
Emperor, an accommodation which, was bound eventually to provoke
French hostility. It is by no means certain that they were wrong in the
new move ; but the balance of probability seems against them. The
Emperor proved to be restless, impotent, and unstable ; England's danger
in estranging France was that she might in consequence turn to Spain.
A Franco-Spanish Alliance was really far more dangerous to England's
position in the New World than an Austro-Spanish combination against
her could have been. The j oint action of England and France had secured
the English commercial privileges in the New World in 1729 ; when France
and England were at enmity, it seemed as if France and Spain might
settle the future of the New World by friendly arrangement or alliance.
When Spain gravitated towards France, England could rely only upon
the Emperor — an ally whose power, interest and authority were purely
territorial — and had consequently to face in the New World the combined
fleets of the two strongest naval Powers except herself. The danger was
at once real and new, for it was only gradually that English diplomatists
began to perceive and to fear that their country might fall prostrate
OH. II,
62 England's attitude in the Polish War. [i73i-83
before the House of Bourbon — an issue which the genius of the elder
Pitt averted, but which came to pass in 1783. The true point of de-
parture, which rendered this combination possible, was taken in the
momentous decisions of the English Cabinet during the years 1731 to 1733
—decisions in which the voice of Newcastle and the hand of Walpole are
specially to be discerned. At first, the consequences of the separation
from PVance were not realised. The sturdy good sense of Walpole did
not penetrate deep into the future : it saw clearly that the French alliance
might mean continental entanglements and campaigns on the Rhine; but
it did not perceive that combination with the Emperor, though perhaps
less dangerous in this direction, would not be of much real value to
England when the question was one of supremacy in the Caribbean Sea
or the Indian Ocean ; or that the abandonment of direct interference in
the Old World did not secure uninterrupted expansion in the New.
No better example of the benefits of non-interference in the affairs
of the Old World could have been supplied than when, in 1733,
England deliberately refused to take part in the War of the Polish Suc-
cession, waged between Russia and the Emperor against France and Spain.
England's view is put tersely enough by Newcastle in a Memorial written
not long after November 1, 1733. " They [the English Ministers] were
apprehensive of being involved in a War, on account of the Polish
Election, in which neither his Majesty nor the [Dutch] States were,
either by interest or engagements, at all concerned.'" As a matter of strict
fact, his Majesty was very much "concerned" both in and about the Polish
Election, for the Emperor had offered him a command on the Rhine,
and the martial little monarch was burning to wear his Oudenarde
coat and display his military valour in a campaign against the French.
But his Majesty's Ministers thought otherwise, and Walpole was the
most urgently pacific of them all. His policy won the day, and his
famous boast to Queen Caroline, that fifty thousand men had been
killed in Europe that year (1734) and not one Englishman, marks the
nobler side of his enthusiasm for peace. Other considerations, however,
drove home the humanitarian argument for peace ; the Whig advocateis
of liberty were not particularly desirous of military glory ; reduction of
the army and withdrawal from the Continent were not less popular with
those who liked to flout Hanover, than were the increase of the fleet
and of enmity towards Spain congenial to the passions of Protestantism
and the interests of commerce. The English Ministers and people had
alike decided to disregard the Polish War. That Russian troops and
Russian diplomacy made their first appearance in western Europe, that
Don Carlos' Garibaldi-like conquest of Naples meant the substitution of
Spanish influence for German in southern Italy, or that the conquest of
Lorraine opened one more French gate into Germany — all these changes
aflected the balance of power, indeed, but not sufficiently to cause
England's interference.
Very serious difterences had already arisen between England and
1732-83] The Facte de famille. 63
Spain ; they were naturally not lessened by a war in which England took
no part, except by showing a diplomatic bias in favour of the Emperor.
It was, however, of unspeakable importance to her that French and
Spanish Bourbons drew together, for their union might disturb England's
commerce, and threaten the New World where her favourable trade
balance was assured. On March 22, 1733, Newcastle wrote to Earl
Waldegrave, British ambassador at Paris, that " Fi-ench Ministers. . .will
give the worst turn they are able to the conduct of England towards
Spain, in order to create a breach or at least a coldness between us." His
foresight was justified : the prospect of war drew France and Spain closer
together, and the breach between Spain and England was completed by
the signing of the Treaty of the Escurial (November 7, 1733). This
famous Treaty, usually called the first of the three Fades defamiUe, was
signed amid precautions of the most extraordinary secrecy ; nevertheless,
its substance, or even its full provisions, were known to Newcastle in
February, 1734. It began by describing the union between the two
branches of the House of Bourbon as eternal and irrevocable ; France
engaged to provide an army of 40,000 at need, and agreed to help Spain
to recover Gibraltar ; and Spain, in her turn, consented to abrogate,
on the first favourable opportunity, the special commercial advantages
given to England by the Treaty of Utrecht. Such was the famous
Facte de famUle, further discussed elsewhere, and often described as the
main origin and cause of that Franco-Spanish alliance which was to be
so prominent in continental diplomacy until it produced the humiliations
imdergone by England in 1783. But such an estimate of this treaty is
based on the words of the document, rather than on the intentions of its
signatories. The Treaty between Spain and France in 1721 contained
the words " eternal and irrevocable union," and, within four years, the
two countries were the bitterest of foes. In a precisely similar way and
in about the same period of time, the eternity and irrevocability of the
union in 1733 was dissolved. The truth is that the importance of the
Bourbon Alliance in 1743, 1761, and 1783 has caused the same importance
to be attributed to that of 1733. Family connexions did not always win
the day even in the eighteenth century, when weighed in the balance
with what rulers considered to be their own or their country's interest ;
and within four years Louis XV was to illustrate this truth very strongly
in his attitude towards Spain. The Facte de fawMle, accordingly, is
interesting rather as indicating the unconscious tendency of events than
as the definite starting-point of an epoch in foreign policy. If any such
definite starting-point is to be found, it must be fixed either in 1730,
when the tendencies, which drew France and England definitely apart,
were first manifested; or in 1743, when the tendencies, which drew
France and Spain definitely together, exercised a commanding force.
In any case, the Facte de famille of 1733 must not be regarded as the
mainspring of the future policy of France and Spain.
64 England's disputes with Spain. [1729-36
England and Spain had rarely been without disputes in the past;
and, though the Treaty of Seville in 1729 had improved matters, the
Commission-^appointed in connexion with it to settle disputes between
the two Powers — had made little headway. The grievances of both sides
centred round the South Sea Company, which was to inflict no less political
than financial misfortune upon England. By the Treaty of Utrecht the
South Sea Company had acquired from Spain the very valuable privilege
of the Asiento, or contract for supplying the annual quota of negroes
imported from Africa to work the plantations of Spanish America. Their
further privilege of sending annually one large trading ship to the Spanish
possessions had been grossly abused, and a large illicit trade had sprung
up, partly under cover, partly independently, of the South Sea Company.
Smugglers plied between the Spanish possessions and Jamaica with great
frequency* Spain replied by sending out ships as guarda-costas to arrest
and punish smugglers. These guarda-costas seem, on occasion, to have
behaved with needless brutality, as in the case of the Rebecca (1731),
when the famous Jenkins was forcibly deprived of that ear, the display
of which subsequently occasioned much sympathy in the House of
Commons and did something to cause the war. In any case, a number
of vessels were wrongly seized and confiscated on the plea of carrying
smuggled goods — in some cases, because Spanish privateers were mas-
querading under the guise of guarda-costas ; in others, because Spanish
governors readily winked at a practice profitable to themselves. But
the brutalities and the grievances were not wholly of Spanish origin;
if there were Spanish privateers off the coast of Jamaica, there were
English off Havana and Honduras. If Jenkins lost his ear and
some other captains their goods, Spanish shipowners had suffered in
their turn ; if Englishmen had been seen working in irons in the
harbour of Havana, Spaniards had been publicly sold as slaves in
the British colonies. To these facts popular fancy in both countries had
stitched a rich embroidery of fiction, so that, in England, it was believed
that hundreds of sailors were rotting in Spanish dungeons; in Spain, that
an English captain had made a certain noble Spaniard cut off and
devour his own nose.
In truth both sides had real grievances ; the English Government,
however, complained most vigorously as to various outrages, especially
that of Jenkins' ear, but without satisfactory result. Patino — the chigf
Minister of Spain from 1726 to 1736 — was not very compliant, and Spanish
diplomacy always moved slowly. Even with the best will in the world,
it was extremely difficult to control quasi -independent Spanish governors
at the other side of the Atlantic, who, for their part, found it equally
impossible to line their coasts with troops to check smuggling, or to
prevent an occasional Spanish privateer from raiding an English ship.
The truth seems to be that, despite the Spanish guarda-costas, the
illicit trade went on with undiminished vigour. This fact is at once
1732-8] Growing bitterness between England and Spain. 65
Spain's defence and England's condemnation. Even if England had
more injuries of which to complain, she had continued the illicit trade'.
What was the use of Patiiio punishing Spanish governors, if English
smugglers continued to deprive Spanish trade of real sources of material
wealth ? The value of the smuggling trade was the real key to England's
secret desire to maintain it, and Spain's open resolution to suppress it.
Unpublished records show clearly that England made far less effort to
suppress her illicit trade with Spanish America, than did either France or
the Dutch Republic. Such action must have been particularly annoying
to a commercially minded Minister like Patiiio, who wished to revive the
trade of Spain, and who knew that Walpole himself showed especial and
increasing severity towards all smugglers on English coasts. With these
causes for irritation, it can hardly be surprising that Patiiio should have
kept a map of Gibraltar open on his table ; that war should be said to
have been, in 1732, only averted by the bad health of King Philip ;
or that Newcastle should be found writing to Keene on June 29, 1733,
that "such enormities for the future" (as some of the late outrages)
" ...could not fail of bringing on a war between the two nations."
It is a singular commentary on the Facte de famille that within a
very short time from its signature Anglo-Spanish relations actually
improved. During 1737, the Spanish Court was on exceedingly bad
terms with the French, and their relations with England improved in a
corresponding ratio. The scene was again changed towards the close of
the year, when Newcastle grew impatient at the Spanish disregard of his
petitions and, under pressure from West Indian merchants, made formal
demands for reparation to various English vessels and seamen. The
popular voice began to be heard on both sides, Spaniards complaining
of the outrages and insolence of the heretical English dogs. Englishmen
dreaming of the days of the " great Eliza," and the short way Drake
and Ralegh had with the tjrrants who flayed Indians alive and put
Protestants to the rack. Public opinion was somewhat divided in Spain;
in England it was united and the agitation grew rapidly to be serious
imder the influence of a rabid Protestantism and of a raucous patriotism.
In 1738, the hope that war would be averted rested solely with the
Ministers of the respective countries, for the peoples had already
announced their views. After Patino's death in 1736, his place had
been taken by La Quadra (subsequently Marquis of Villarias), stubborn
and obstinate, full of true Spanish pride, and yet a mere tool in the
hands of Elisabeth Famese, whose fiery temperament was no longer
* It should be noticed that there were two kinds of illicit trade: first, the
smuggling in connexion with the Asiento and the annual ship sent to Spanish
America, which was engineered, or connived at, by the South Sea Company ; secondly,
the smuggling carried on by interlopers from the British West Indies and from
British America. In the last resort, the British Government appear to have been
willing to suppress the latter practice. With their tenderness towards the South Sea
Company, it is unlikely that they would ever have consented to repress the former.
C. M. H. VI. CH. II. fi
66 Proposals for accommodation. [i738
curbed by a great Minister. On the English side was Benjamin Keene,
ambassador at Madrid, a resolute diplomatist, and yet easy in his ways,
and one who knew how to make himself liked by the Spanish royalties ;
Walpole, anxious as always for peace, and Newcastle too prone to give
way to popular clamour. Unfortunately the latter was not decreasing in
England, for the South Sea Company was busy trumpeting its grievances.
There were the old quarrels about the Asiento, smuggling, and the right
of search on suspicion of smuggled goods exercised by Spaniards over
English vessels ; and fresh disputes about the frontiers of Georgia and
the British right to cut logwood in Honduras had come to the front.
These might well have been settled, had there not been a general
impression among Englishmen that their Government was supine and
inclined to truckle to Spain ; "The crowd must not be suffered to know,
that many tuns of logwood, and even the ears, or even the life of a man
(whatever compassion he deserves) are not worth a general war." Par-
liament met raging in March, 1738. Jenkins presented his ear and
his grievances at the bar of the Commons; violent speeches were
made — Pulteney breathing defiance, the young Pitt declaring our trade
and our honour to be at stake, the Prince of Wales looking down
sympathetically from the gallery; and violent resolutions were within
an ace of being passed.
The British Ministers had neither been as pacific nor as idle as
journalistic charity implied. On March 2 (O.S.), Newcastle had instructed
Keene that the British Government intended to issue letters of reprisal
on Spanish vessels. On March 30 (O.S.), Captain Clinton, "Com-
mander-in-chief in and about the Mediterranean," was ordered to proceed
to Minorca with his squadron. La Quadra was indignant, and sent
haughty letters to Keene; but the resolutions of Parliament and the
anger of the British public undoubtedly impressed while they irritated
him. On May 9 (O.S.), the British Government ordered a reinforcement
to the Mediterranean, and placed Admiral Haddock in command. On
May 18 (O.S.) Keene transmitted a violent letter from La Quadra, but
informed Newcastle that the Spanish Minister had verbally expressed his
sovereign's desire for an amicable settlement of outstanding differences.
This commendation came just in time to avert war ; the violence of the
letter was set on one side by the British Government, and arrangements
were made to accept the verbal overture. Negotiations, already put
in hand between the British Ministers and the Spanish ambassador in
London, Sir Thomas Fitzgerald (Don Geraldino), were now pushed
forward. England owed Spain a debt of £180,000 at this time, while
she claimed from Spain =£"343,277 for damages to English vessels and the
like, so that, on the balance, Spain owed her about ^©1 60,000. After a
great deal of haggling, it was provisionally arranged that, in return for a
speedy payment, Spain should pay £25,00Q as a discharge for all debts.
This arrangement was finally embodied in the Convention of the Paido,
1739] England's reception of the Convention. 67
signed by Keene and La Quadra on January 14 (N.S.), 17S9, with the
addition that Spain should pay the money in four months after ratifica-
tions were exchanged. Concessions had been made on both sides ; Spain,
by agreeing to pay the ,£95,000, acknowledged what she had never
acknowledged before, that wrongs had been inflicted on British vessels ;
England, by abating her terms, admitted that some of her claims for
injured vessels might have been too large. Neither can there be any
doubt but that the Convention was intended on both sides as preliminary
to a genuine settlement of all outstanding grievances, on which a
Commission was appointed to sit. This is proved by the fact that
Spain proceeded immediately to disarm her fleet and disband her regi-
ments, and that Newcastle actually wrote to Keene on January 26 (O.S.)
to suggest the possibility of an Anglo-Spanish alliance.
Unfortunately for the intentions of Ministers, a number of most
delicate negotiations remained to be adjusted, and unhappily this had
to be done just at the time when English public opinion was expressing
its disapproval of the Convention. But this was not the only diflSculty.
The South Sea Company and their claims had been left out of the
Convention by La Quadra for separate settlement. The King of Spain
claimed £68,000 as a fourth share of the profits from voyages of the
annual ship trading in Spanish waters ; this sum the South Sea Company
were unwilling to pay, because, as they alleged, the King of Spain owed
them thrice as much for damages to their ships, though they refused to
produce their accounts on this head. It was unfortunate that Keene
was not only British ambassador, but agent for the South Sea Company,
for he thus spoke with two voices, as a diplomatist with responsibility,
and as a merchant angry at the loss of goods and desirous of driving a
hard bargain. In private, he complained of the unreasonableness of
the South Sea Company, and thought them foolish, and even dishonest.
The quarrel between the South Sea Company and the Spanish King,
which ended on May 6 (O.S.) by the latter's declaration that he would
revoke the Asiento, unless the =£"68,000 were paid to him at once,
contributed greatly to aggravate the situation.
When the news of the Convention arrived, a storm of abuse broke
out in the Press. One quotation from a pamphlet may serve to typify
many : " Jack English truly makes a fine figure and is of great weight in
the balance of power, when he is forced to come cringing up to a Conven-
tion." Amid much violence and dwindling majorities, the Convention
was ratified by both Houses in February, 1739. But the clamour had
not missed its effect. Newcastle — ever willing to give way to popular
feeling — was thoroughly frightened. " We must yield to the times," he
wrote on February 24 to Lord Hardwicke, and Keene was instructed to
press Spain to abandon the "right of search." Whatever intention
Newcastle had of yielding to the current of popular feeling, after this
display of it the South Sea Company had no idea of yielding to the King
cH. II. 6 — 2
68 Disputes between England and Spain -War declared. [1739
of Spain. La Quadra, like a true Spanish Grandee, was inexpressibly
disgusted by the violence of both company and of public, and Keene
soon experienced a new hauteur and defiance in his tone. Walpole was,
however, still desirous of peace, and Spain, being disarmed, was not
anxious for war. But, if there was any possibility of a pacific solution,
it was now removed by the action of the British Ministry. On January 29
(O.S.), 1739, orders had been sent to Admiral Haddock to recall his fleet
from the Mediterranean and "forthwith to repair to England." In
February, the British Government became anxious, partly because it
feared that the public clamour might produce war, partly because their
information led them to suspect that a secret alliance of France and
Spain was on the point of being signed. At any rate, the Admiralty
records show that, on March 10, the January orders were revoked, and
that Haddock was commanded to remain at Gibraltar. In some way,
which is not discoverable, the Spaniards came to suspect the fact that
these counter-orders had been issued, though Newcastle denied (falsely)
that there were any, and instructed Keene to that effect. La Quadra
naturally regarded this strange counter-order as a menace, to which
Keene's bland innocence only added mystery. On May 8 (O.S.)
Newcastle wrote to Keene that he was certain that some sort of alliance
had taken place between France and Spain, and that, therefore, the
fleet must remain at Gibraltar. On May 15 (O.S.), at the conference
of Commissioners, Keene was ofiicially informed that the ^95,000
(due the day before) would not be paid, unless the counter-orders to
Haddock were revoked. Keene was smooth-spoken, and replied that
this matter was not within his competence; but the time was past
when fair answers would turn away wrath, for each party had obviously
reached a point from which it was impossible to recede. Spain had no
intention of paying the =£"95,000, being very short of money and fearing
that war would break out immediately; Newcastle did not mean to
recall Haddock's fleet, because then Gibraltar and Minorca would be
defenceless. La Quadra justly suspected Newcastle of issuing counter-
orders to the fleet; Newcastle unjustly suspected Spain of having
made an alliance with France against England. On June 14 (O.S.)
Newcastle wrote to Keene to decline any further conferences with the
Spanish Commissioners, and henceforth war became only a question of
time and opportunity. In August Keene was recalled from Madrid, and
at length, on October 19, the King's heralds passed through the City to
Temple Bar and proclaimed that war with Spain had begun. The Prince
of Wales, in the Rose Tavern hard by, drank to the success of the War
against Papists, and the church bells rang merrily out from the steeples.
Every reader of English history knows how passionately Walpole
regretted the War, and of his bitter epigram when he heard the bells
ringing for joy ; and every sympathy must be extended to a reluctance
as sincere as it was humane. The War, which owed so much to the
ilZ8-i822i] Prance temporarily neutral. Parliamentary system. 69
hot-headed young Prince, and the frenzied crowd, was not, however,
indefensible on the grounds of national self-interest, though it certainly
was on those of justice and right. Walpole thought that we should
gain by peace and an accommodation with Spain ; Newcastle was partly
driven to war by his information as to a Franco-Spanish alliance. The
public thought it better to fight Spain so long as she stood alone ; and,
as a matter of fact, the public instinct was right and Newcastle's informa-
tion was wrong. Whatever causes of suspicion there might be, no actual
agreement between France and Spain existed at this time, except the
inoperative Facte dejhmille.
Fleury, in France, loved peace as genuinely as Walpole, but, unlike
him, had made genuine sacrifices at the shrine of his idol by allowing the
French fleet to dwindle. Fleury saw that it was not in accordance
with French interests to help Spain against England, until the French
fleet was better able to defend her commerce. Hence, to the no small
amazement and delight of Newcastle, France remained neutral, until
the War of the Austrian Succession, as related elsewhere, forced her to
engage in the struggle, and converted the existing strife in American
waters into a struggle for the mastery of the sea, which carried with it
supremacy in the West and the East Indies, and the dominion over
the whole continent of North America. Whether South America was to
remain Spanish, whether North America was to become English or
French — these were the great questions first raised in 1738 and 1742.
The raising of them forms the first act of a great drama, which extends
over ninety years and only closes with the proclamation of the Monroe
doctrine by the United States and with Canning's recognition of the
Spanish-American Republics in 1823.
Two great events of the period — namely, the securing of the
Hanoverian Succession, and the development of England's commercial
greatness — have already been noted in this chapter. The third great
event — the less obvious and perceptible development of England's par-
liamentary system — can only be briefly summarised. Walpole's position
was throughout insecure, depending on delicate balances, on obscure
negotiations and skilful combinations between groups, for the homo-
geneity of the Cabinet and of the party in ofiice were alike imperfectly
recognised. After the accession of George I, the avowed Jacobites
gradually sank into a minority, the dualistic party system broke up,
the great dividing lines between Whig and Tory became blurred and
confused. The struggles under Walpole were not between two distinct
parties with different views of prerogative, but between a Ministry and
an Opposition, holding the same views as to the advantages of office. The
members, no longer divided into parties, were separated into groups, and
this disunion was increased by the growth of corruption and by undue
influence at elections. By these means many constituencies, especially
70 Conditions of party government under Walpole. [1720-5
borough ones, fell entirely under the control of a few persons. These
" boroughmongers," as they were called, appointed their own candidates
to seats in Parliament, and called on them to resign when they disagreed
with their views. Hence Walpole found himself ruling not over a large
compact party, but over a number of patrons, each of whom possessed a
large parliamentary following. Under these circumstances, the individual
views of a powerful patron might be of great importance ; for example,
the defection of the arch "boroughmonger" Newcastle would have meant
a loss of near fifty votes to the Government. To adapt a happy
comparison, the difficulties of Walpole might be likened to those of
Charles Edward ; he had to deal with a number of proud and resolute
chiefs — ^powerful, because they had many followers who slavishly obeyed
them; dangerous, because their personal quarrels threatened to make
the execution of united movements impossible.
A relative independence of patrons and boroughmongers was secured
to the First Lord of the Treasury by his control of the place-holders under
the Crown. So long as the King and the First Lord agreed, at least a
hundred members of Parliament depended absolutely on the Minister for
their places, and a further number could be secured by a more indirect
patronage. The place-holders were not always a source of strength, for
they did not desire to lose their places; and, when a Minister grew
unpopular, his majorities fell because the place-holders were anxious to
make terms with a possible successor to the First Lord's officership, and
therefore either abstained from voting, or attacked the Government.
Hence a Minister with a large majority was not secure, and a Minister
with a falling majority was doomed, unless he took drastic measures.
The history of the Excise Bill well illustrates this point. Walpole's
majorities fell from 100 to 16, upon which he dropped the BiU. But he
struck hard against the place-holders, who had tried to make fair weather
with the Opposition. Chesterfield, Stair, Cobham, the Duke of Bolton,
and a crowd of lesser victims, suffered loss of place or regiment. The
system was very bad, and, in depriving officers of their commissions,
Walpole undoubtedly went too far. But, in the imperfect state of
parliamentary discipline, it would seem that indirect bribery at any rate
was a necessity. The only alternative was parliamentary reform, which
would have enabled electors to check members' corruption ; but hardly
anyone thought of this remedy, and, in any case, legislative innovation
was not in Walpole's line. Direct bribery has been proved against him in
a few cases, but the evidence suggests that it was not common, and most
of Walpole's " corruption " consisted in the use of indirect means of
securing party allegiance which every parliamentary leader employs.
The scale on which it prevailed was far too large, but the influence of
the Crown had been regularly employed by the Minister since the days
of William III. Onslow, who had every reason for knowing, said that
it was Sunderland who extended and systematised corruption. Walpole
1720-49] Bolingbroke and the Opposition. 71
did little or nothing to check the system ; but he did not carry it
further — here at least the policy of tranguUla non movere showed its good
side. The Secret Committee of Enquiry (which consisted, with two
exceptions, of political opponents) failed to produce evidence against
him of an impressive character. It is usually forgotten that the officials
of the Secret Service Fund (out of which direct bribes would be paid)
refused to give evidence to the Committee ; but there is not much reason
to suppose that an unusual amount of money went in this way. After
Walpole's fall, parliamentary corruption greatly increased under the
Ministries of Wilmington and Pelham, though they contained several
men who had frequently stigmatised Walpole as the master and origin
of all such practices.
During the early twenties, the Opposition groups were so divided,
and Walpole's prestige so great, that his task was simple. But, after
Bolingbroke's return to England in 1725, Walpole's difficulties grew ; he
had done his best to form a homogeneous Cabinet and a compact Minis-
terial party, and Bolingbroke replied by forming a compact Opposition,
which should comprehend not only Tories but malcontent Whigs. The
Jacobites he threw over altogether, and formed the basis of his homo-
geneous Opposition by calling for a national party of " Patriots." His
project succeeded, and he was eventually joined by Whigs out of office like
Pulteney and Carteret, by Tories like Sir William Wyndham, and, later,
by young enthusiasts like George Lyttelton and his friend William Pitt.
After the party was formed, the public remained to be won ; and for this
purpose a journal, The Crqftsmam, was started on December 5, 1726,
to which Pulteney and Bolingbroke alike contributed. It ran for ten
years, and was remarkable for its immense effect upon public opinion.
Bolingbroke's invective was terrific, his declamations against corruption
popular, his designation of Walpole as the " brazen image the king had
set up " — and the like — amusing. It was in vain that the Government
subsidised pamphleteers, that Walpole even took the pen himself —
"railers on one side, writers on the other," said Swift.
The first great victory of the Opposition over Walpole was the
abandonment of the Excise Bill (1733), due to the fury into which
they had lashed the public. In the next year Pulteney denoimced
Walpole in Parliament, under a transparent disguise, as the plunderer of
the nation; Walpole replied, in a strain of extraordinary bitterness,
denouncing Bolingbroke, in the same manner, as having gained over
persons of fine parts and as having moved the whole Opposition to
Jacobitism, and warning them that he had betrayed every master he ever
served. In 1735 Bolingbroke and Pulteney quarrelled, with the result
that the former practically retired from active politics. The Patriot Kmg
(written 1738, published 1749) continued the influence which a ready
wit, an unscrupulous courage, and a golden eloquence had never failed
to exercise upon a generation to whom all three qualities were dear.
72 Walpole's fall. — His character. [1722-42
In 1737 Frederick, Prince of Wales, joined the ranics of the Opposi-
tion, and thus redeemed it from the charge of Jacobitism, which had
been Walpole's chief weapon against its members. The disputes with
Spain in 1738-9 gave the Opposition their chance, and landed Walpole
in a war of which he never pretended to approve. The gleam of success
at its opening, when Vernon took Portobello (1739), was followed
by a series of thoroughly mismanaged operations, which offered a
glorious opportunity to an Opposition destitute alike of mercy or
scruple. In 1741, Walpole was fiercely attacked on the ground that the
Constitution abhorred the idea of a Prime Minister, which office he had
assumed. The charge seems to have meant that he aimed at being sole
Minister or Mayor of the Palace, and had used the royal authority
to override the rest of the Cabinet. It was a singular irony that, a year
or two before, his colleagues had forced him into a war which he detested,
and that they had continued to overrule him in directing its operations.
The charge was fantastic, and the attack failed, Walpole being supported
by a large majority. But the end was not far off; the debates had shown
that Walpole was the enemy for whose blood the Opposition thirsted, and
Newcastle was not unwilling to make terms with them by throwing his
colleague to the wolves. In February, 1742, after debates of extra-
ordinary heat and violence, Walpole was defeated on a petition relating
to a disputed election at Chippenham. The " Robinocracy " was at an
end, and Walpole resigned, taking to himself the earldom of Orford.
Few English Ministers have ruled so long as Walpole, few have
shown such contemptuous indifference to criticism, or suffered so much
from its influence on posterity. The facts as to his corruption have
already been made clear; and, though he did well for himself, for his
family and his friends, it is preposterous to describe him as the plunderer
of his country or to speak of the " True Sinking Fimd " as the "bottom-
less pocket of Robin." After twenty years the corruption of Parliament
was no worse, the general state of the finances infinitely better, than
when he became Premier. As a Minister of finance and commerce his
genius is unquestionable; his claims to the same tribute in other directions
are dubious. He had a shrewd insight into mankind, especially into
their weaknesses, and much tact and skill in the management of men or
of parties. His firm grasp of practical politics enabled him to see and
to develop the principle that Ministries must be homogeneous and
parties united — services of which the importance can hardly be over-
emphasised ; but he did not shrink from depriving political opponents of
military posts, or from appropriating the Sinking Fund — actions which
alike demoralised public life. Onslow touches another side of him,
when he calls him "the best man from the goodness of his heart... to
live with, and to live under, of any great man I ever knew." Even
Bolingbroke wrote of him that his " greatest enemies have allowed him
to my knowledge the virtues of good nature and generosity." But,
1742-57] Pitfs early years. 73
unfortunately, Walpole's easy good nature was the complement, perhaps
the result, of an easy virtue ; he seldom failed to ridicule high aspira-
tions, and seems genuinely to have suspected noble enthusiasms. There
is indeed a certain large simplicity in his utterance, a magnanimity in
his indifference to calumny and in his freedom from cant, which wins
admiration. But he wanted, wrote Chesterfield, a certain elevation that
is necessary both for great good or great mischief, and he was not the
man to die for a cause, or to live for an ideal. One who had assailed him
in his declining years was now to show that there were other ways of
governing England than by lulling her to sleep, other ways of dealing
with corruption than by sneering at virtue, and another way to popu-
larity than that of following the people's wishes.
The chief interest of the years 1742-57, otherwise barren in our
internal history, lies in the fact that they describe the gradual rise to
power of the most extraordinary genius of the age. The early career of
William Pitt was not always creditable to him; his oratory was im-
passioned, but theatrical ; and his violence against Walpole was not by
any means uninspired by self-interest. On the fall of Walpole, Newcastle
and his brother, Henry Pelham (who was Paymaster of the Forces),
opened the Cabinet door wide enough to admit Pulteney (Lord Bath) and
Carteret, but remorselessly slammed it upon Pitt. Meanwhile Carteret,
with the King's favour to back him, launched England into the turmoil
of continental warfare (1743). Pitt wreaked his vengeance on the
Ministry by stigmatising Carteret as a Minister who had drunk of the
potion "causing men to forget their country." His attacks, though
immeasurably violent, were not absurd, he had never been acquainted
with official secrets from the inside, and throughout his speeches on the
Spanish War of 1739 and on the Continental War of 1743-4 ran a sound
vein of strategy, and a genuine, if not quite accurate, apprehension that
British and colonial interests were being sacrificed to those of Hanover —
" the despicable electorate." Throughout them can be discerned, together
with an ardent ambition and a boundless love of fame, the yearnings
of a lofty spirit and the glow of an unquenchable patriotism. Pitt's
eloquence from the Opposition benches, and Newcastle's intrigues in the
Cabinet, finally drove the high-minded but imbalanced Carteret (now
Earl Granville) from office (November, 1744). As Henry Pelham had
already in July, 1743, succeeded to the First Lordship of the Treasury
on the death of the amiable cipher — the Earl of Wilmington, who had
held it since February, 1742 — the Newcastle interest became supreme.
But there was now a new force to be reckoned with, for Pitt's oratory
could not be withstood in the Commons. In 1745, it was, for the first
time, employed on behalf of the Government, and Newcastle and Pelham,
hoping to silence Pitt by office, prayed the King to admit him to the
Ministry. George II was inexorable ; he had never forgiven the attacks
upon Carteret or the sarcasms about Dettingen. When the King
74 Character and influence of Pelham. [i74e-54
I ;
definitely refused this request, Newcastle, Pelham and the other Ministers
took the rather unpatriotic step of resigning in a body (February 10,
1746), just at the height of the agitation caused by Charles Edward's
successes in Scotland. The King sent for Lords Bath and Granville,
who formed a Ministry which lasted forty-eight hours. "Bounce
went all the project into shivers," wrote a well-informed contemporary,
"like the vessel in the Akhymist, when they are on the brink of the
Philosopher's Stone." GranviUe retired, laughing at the whole Jiasco
as an excellent joke, and the King sulkily capitulated; Pitt became
Joint Vice-Treasurer for Ireland and (May 6) Paymaster-General. This
incident has sometimes been claimed as the definite precedent for the
establishment of the joint responsibility of the Ministry. It is difficult
to view it altogether as such ; in this case some of the resignations were
calculated, some spontaneous, and later history shows several instances
in which the principle has been ignored that Ministers ought to resign
in a body. The incident of 1746 is less important because it asserted
a principle in the Constitution than because it admitted a man into the
Ministry.
From 1746 to 1754 the land had rest from party bickerings ; Pelham,
the head of the Ministry, was a sort of lesser Walpole, an excellent
financier, and a shrewd and amiable party leader. His Ministry
witnessed the Reform of the Calendar (1751) and the foundation of
the British Museum (1753), but for neither of these measures can he
claim the chief credit; the reduction of the National Debt and the
prohibition of the right to manufacture cei-tain articles in the colonies
(elsewhere described) are measures more truly his, and give Pelham, in
the one case a genuine, in the other a sinister, renown. In 1748 — at the
end of the war — the National Debt stood at near eighty millions ; Pelham,
imitating Walpole's measures of 1717 and 1727, reduced the rate of
interest on it to three per cent, average, and the gain to the Treasury was
substantial. The unfunded Debt was paid ofi', the Sinking Fund (sadly
depleted of late) was replenished, credit soothed, and the merchant
world flattered. Pelham has been praised for his careful stewardship
and for his economic reform in all departments ; but this praise requires
qualification. Genuine love of economy, in the main, prevailed; in
particular, a reduction of the army and navy was carried by him, despite
bitter fraternal opposition from Newcastle. His discouragement of
payment of subsidies, on the grand scale, to foreign Princes, for the use
of their armies, is balanced by an encouragement of payments to members
of Parliament for the use of their votes: subsidy treaties were fewer,
pensions more numerous. This, however, is not the most serious charge
against his conduct of affairs: after all, the demands of the English
place-hunter were not too excessive a burden on the Treasury under
Pelham, while his measures towards American manufactures began to
place a heavy strain on the loyalty of the empire. A reduction of the
i'754-7] The Coalition Ministry of Pitt and Newcastle. 75
National Debt, an increase of the Pension List, and a diminution of
colonial loyalty — these are the main features of Pelham's Ministry, and
the ultimate logic of the policy of tranquilla non movere. Pelham's
errors were due to the fact that he had too faithfully followed Walpole,
at a time when his master's policy was becoming more and more anti-
quated. The new age was not to be one of peace, indolence, and
materialism, but of war, adventure, and idealism ; and for inspiration it
was to turn — not to a shrewd and cautious financier, but to a passionate
orator, who struck chords to which Pelham was deaf, and followed ideals
to which he was blind.
Pelham's death in March, 1754, left his brother, the hasty and fickle
Newcastle, to succeed him at the vacant Treasury. The Duke foolishly
appointed Sir Thomas Robinson (afterwards Lord Grantham) — a diplo-
matist quite fresh to party politics — leader in the Commons, and tried
to manage everything himself from the Lords. Unlike Pelham, he could
not command respect from his subordinates ; and Pitt and Henry Fox
openly ridiculed their nominal leader in the Commons, and their real
leader in the Lords. After agonies and distractions of no common
kind, even Newcastle recognised the inevitable, dismissed Pitt, and won
over the war party by .offering Fox a seat in the Cabinet (April, 1755).
But he soon found himself weaker than ever, for a crisis was at hand,
war was inevitable, subsidy treaties must come before the Commons, and
there Pitt was supreme. Pitt was finally dismissed from office in November,
1755, after he had not only ridiculed but vehemently denounced
Newcastle. His language in private was equally contemptuous, and, in
a secret interview with Newcastle on December 22, 1755, he belaboiu'ed
him with all the force of his eloquence, rejecting aU his terms. In
November', Robinson had been succeeded by Fox as Secretary of State ;
but even he could not face Pitt's invective in the Commons, and at
last, after having been in office for a generation, Newcastle resigned
(November, 1756). A short-lived Ministry, under the Duke of Devonshire
as nominal head with Pitt as guiding spirit, endured from 1756 to April,
1757. It took vigorous measures and won much outside popularity, as
was shown by the shower of gold boxes with which patriotic corporations
veiled the fall of Pitt. After eleven weeks' interregnum. Lord Hardwicke,
the sage and veteran Chancellor, brought about an accommodation
between Pitt and Newcastle (June 11, 1757). Newcastle had the largest
following, Pitt the most commanding voice, in the Commons ; and the
one neutralised the other. Pitt sought power, Newcastle office, for its
own sake, and the compromise of a coalition Ministry enabled each to
win his desire. But Pitt, though the greatest, was not the only man in
the Government ; the diverse talents of Granville, of Anson, of Fox, of
Ligonier, and of Hardwicke, contributed largely to make the Ministry
of 1757 the most glorious and successful in English annals.
Though Pitt had been greatly aided by his popularity outside
76 The advent of Pitt to power. Pitt and Walpole. [1720-57
Parliament in the period immediately preceding 1757, it is wholly
inaccurate to say that he ascended to power on the shoulders of the
people. He owed his early rise to his parliamentary success, which had
been established by conventional means. At first he had been supported
by the influence of connexion, by the help of the Lytteltons and the
Cobhams, by the favour of the Prince of Wales. Later, he had been
aided by the Grenville interest, and by certain intrigues with Lady
Yarmouth, George IPs reigning mistress, which were of an unusually
degrading character. In the sense that the people directly aided a
statesman in rising to power, Pitt — the friend of peers, of a royal mistress
and of a prince — was less truly their choice than Walpole, who had been
but a plain country squire. In 1720, the popular voice had called for
him far more loudly than it had called for Pitt in 1746, and his bluff
manners, coarse accent, and homely acquaintances, never ceased to distress
patrician taste. Pitt's influence from connexion had been strengthened
by his influence in the House of Commons and by ofiice, before the
people began definitely to support him. Despite some equivocal actions
due to an exorbitant ambition, his hatred of corruption was sincere, his
objects were pure and patriotic. His genuine moral enthusiasm, joined
to extraordinary powers of oratory, made him resistless in the Commons,
and eventually forced Ministers of that day, always insecure, to make
terms with him. But, though Pitt had secured power by oratory in the
Commons and influence with boroughmongers, he was the last man to
despise popularity. He thought himself called to office in 1757, "in
some sort by the voice of the people," and he understood how to kindle
their enthusiasm, though he was not afraid, on occasion, of resisting
them. Of his powers as a great war Minister, of his deep knowledge
of foreign politics, of the needs of England's commerce, and of the wishes
of her colonies, no mention has to be made here. It is sufficient to say
that, for the first time in this period, England possessed a Minister wilji
the majority which Carteret, and the ideals which Walpole, had lacked.
The heroic age had come again, and a dominating figure was not wanting
to it. His oft-quoted utterance that he alone could save his country
was no arrogant boast at this moment, for Pitt's actions support these
haughty words. His matchless energy, no longer confined to empty
invective, was at length to be translated into action, and was to awaken
the admiration alike of generals and admirals, parliament and people,
in the crisis of the world struggle which gave England her empire.
(2)
The earlier half of the eighteenth century in England is an age of
materialism, a period of dim ideals, of expiring hopes ; before the middle
of the century its character was transformed, there appeared & movement
headed by a mighty leader, who brought forth water from the rocks to
Influence of politics on religion. 77
make a barren land live again. Dropping allegory, we can recog-
nise in English institutions, in English ideals, in the English philosophy
of this age, the same practical materialism, the same hard rationalism,
the same unreasonable self-complacency. Reason dominated alike the
intellect, the will, and the passions ; politics were self-interested, poetry
didactic, philosophy critical and objective. Generalisations such as these
are but rough approximations, for no age is without its individual
protests and rebels, without men who seek to dam or to divert the
streams of tendency. Of these men, Chatham among politicians, Thomson
among poets, Berkeley among philosophers, Law among divines, all
derived new thoughts, evoked new harmonies, or caught new inspirations
from the age. But more important than any of these in universality of
influence and in range of achievement were John Wesley and the religious
revival to which he gave his name and his life.
The history of thought and action — always closely interwoven — in
this age is inextricably intertwined. The framework of the national
life appears to be entirely political, the civil revolution of 1688 has
vanquished the religious revolution of 1642. Even the most abstract
of thinkers and the most unworldly of clerics have a mundane and
secular stamp upon them; even Butler is a courtier, even Leibniz is a
wit. Religious, social, and literary influences show but as the tiny
satellites of a political planet, to which they owe their warmth and their
light. When, in 1727, Caroline, Princess of Wales, became the Queen of
George II, all these political influences were intensified, for the Court
became the chief centre not only of power, but of learning. She loved
at all times to surround herself with learned men — profound theologians
like Butler and Berkeley, deep-read divines like Clarke and Potter,
wide-minded philosophers like Leibniz, cultured Deists like Chesterfield.
The Queen's interest in theology and the Establishment was keen ; but
it was primarily intellectual. She loved theological arguments rather
than good works, and valued divines for depth of learning or subtlety
of metaphysic rather than for fervour of piety. Deism — ^never popular
with the masses or the country gentry — had immense vogue at Comi; ;
and it implied a vague monotheism for the educated few, with a very
definite dogmatic system for the ignorant many. The notion that it
was necessary to preserve the Establishment in order to secure the
obedience of the vulgar was accepted by Walpole, who confessed himself
a sceptic in private, while publicly proclaiming his adherence to the
Church, and by Bolingbroke, who outdid him alike in the secret fervour
of his freethinking and in the open passion of his orthodoxy. When
Bolingbroke and Walpole agreed on a principle, it is hardly rash to con-
clude that the governing classes as a whole acquiesced in it. Nothing,
indeed, could be worse for a religion or a Church than a public adherence
to its forms and a private ridiculing of its substance by a large proportion
of the governing class. They might almost consider themselves as beings
78 Theological controversy.
of another race and religion ; the classics had taught them their creed
of isolation and their doctrine of Deism, and the weeping classical
nymphs and cupids who support Latin inscriptions on their tombs in
many a church are true witnesses to their half-unconscious adherence to
the ideals of Greece and of Rome. A Roman noble of the age of
Horace, with his vast estates, his nominal adherence to Augustan
morality, and his playful hesitance between rival philosophies, is, indeed,
no inapt prototype of his English brother in the age of Walpole, with
his broad acres, his lip-service to the Establishment, and his benevolent
neutrality between rival religions. Such a society was perfectly self-
sufficient and perfectly self-contained, and, had not new and mighty
influences arisen to overthrow class barriers, the chasm between the
few and the many might have given birth to revolution.
The danger to orthodoxy was, not that its precepts were ceasing to
be avowed, but that they were ceasing to be believed among the upper
class; and it was unfortunate that the Establishment, at the moment
when it was most open to attack, had provided for its defence only in
the least adequate way. Pluralism and indolence were frequent among
the clergy; the age was active only in religious controversy, and the
generation between 1710 and 1740 witnessed works of real importance by
such men as Clarke, Butler, Berkeley, Wake, and Warburton. But the
controversies were in the main barren and dusty, and were handled in too
arid and hard a fashion to win the recognition of posterity ; there is a
fine harvest of wit, of learning and of intellect, a rank crop of abuse,
partisanship, and acrimony, and an utter dearth of moderation and
sympathy. Noble exceptions are to be found in men like Law and Butler ;
but even these seem to have viewed controversy or religious meditation
rather as comforting to themselves than for the sake of its immediate
benefit to the world. Despairing of the general attitude towards
religion, they walled themselves up in an intellectual city, where they
could exert but little influence on the general run of men. With lesser
and baser men, controversial theology served not spiritual but worldly
interests, and a clever religious tract or sermon availed as much for
ecclesiastical, as did a smart pamphlet for political, promotions. The
famous Sacheverell trial is the most important instance of the way in
which ecclesiastical controversies shifted into partisan politics, and the
Non-Jurors, the Bangorian, and a score of other controversies, are more
typical if less striking examples. The process of secularisation is
apparent in other directions. Political considerations dominated eccle-
siastical patronage and behaviour ; and, while the Church became more
and more political, the State became less and less religious. Episcopal
politicians forgot their fervour in the presence of the cultured sceptics
of the Court, and learnt the mundane lessons of corruption and venality
from the place-hunters of Parliament.
Among the parochial clergy, as a whole, there was a frequent reaction
General state of the clergy. 79
against episcopal dominance, which had in it the symptoms of a
healthy revival. In the country parishes there were, indeed, a number
of too worldly clergy. Smollett spoke of "rosy sons of the Church,"
who quaffed too much ale in ingle corners ; Cowper of " cassocked
huntsmen," who set horse and hound before parish ; and, in general,
Georgian wits made the parson as much of a butt as ever Elizabethans
did the friar. But satire is not history, and there is evidence that many
country parishes were well served by their incumbents. The habits
of the town clergy gave the satirist more justification for his wit;
for they were often indolent and worldly, their sermons were often
directed only to the refined understanding, the presence of the "un-
savoury multitude" was sometimes resented or discouraged. When a
popular preacher brought the poor flooding into his church, the
wealthier members fled, locking their pews behind them to keep out the
poor, the churchwardens would cut off the lights, and the pulpit be
iUiunined by a solitary candle in the hand of the preacher. Such was
the recorded experience of William Romaine, lecturer at St George's,
Hanover Square, and at St Dunstan's, Fleet Street — a man of blameless
life and devoted character. Even if this incident is not typical, it is
difficult to ignore the force of the opinions held by serious men as to
the conduct and usefulness of the Episcopal Bench, of Chesterfield's
solemn private warning to his son that it was a vulgar error to regard
clergymen as necessarily hypocrites — or of Voltaire's published assertion
that England was the most irreligious of countries.
If we were to rely upon the amount of churchbuilding under Anne,
the number of charity schools founded both by Church and Chapel,
and the amount of poor-relief subscribed by voluntary effort under the
Georges, we might think the age not deficient in religious vitality. But
the deficiencies in religious force, at any rate in the early Georgian
period, are attested by witnesses more powerful than statistics. Butler
and Berkeley both publicly confessed — with melancholy and sorrow — the
too common indifference to religion and the general ridicule of clergymen,
and betrayed signs of this conviction in their works. Butler's Analogy
and his theory of Probabilism exhibit religion on its last line of defence
— ^he appeals to reason and common sense, and substitutes the proof by
induction and the external senses for the proof from internal conviction
and faith. Berkeley's practical efforts to create a religious imperialism
in his Bermuda Scheme met (as told above) with a disastrous check
from the indifference of the age ; and his theoretical attempts to recreate
the imagination by proclaiming the reality of ideas, were in large measure
a reaction from contact with too materialistic an age. One virtue — a
rare virtue indeed — this age possessed, that of tolerance. Clergy whose
opinions approached Deism were not inhibited from preaching ; con-
troversies which led to advocacy of quasi-scepticism were not openly
suppressed ; and the bands of ecclesiastical discipline and political
80 Religion and the masses.
control were often amiably relaxed. That there was a real advance
towards the greatest of religious blessings — respect for the individual
conscience — was due at least in part to indolence, and yet more to
political considerations; but the notion that persecution for religious
opinions was bad in itself undoubtedly gained ground at the same time.
Thus, in 1753, the Bishops showed real zeal in supporting the Act for
the Naturalisation of Jews, and only capitulated to the furious outburst
of indignation from the lower clergy and the mob, which secured the
repeal of the Act in 1754.
The religious and social condition of the masses under the two
Georges is the severest condemnation of the religious life of the period.
The masses were ignorant and brutalised, and their numbers and de-
moralisation rapidly increased. The medieval corporations in town or
city were powerless to cope with the growing evils of industrial life ; the
Government pandered to mob passions by public executions or by un-
worthy concessions to mob violence, and insulted humanity by -the brutal
ferocity of its criminal code. A governing class, intent only on pleasure
or politics, a Church occupied chiefly with patronage and controversy,
were now to feel the force of a great religious wave which was to beat on
every wall of privilege.
The real ulcer of the age lay in its uncompromising individualism,
and in the inadequacy of existing social organisations to cope with those
evils. Political and religious institutions had crystallised into a species
of hereditary or privileged oligarchy, into an officialdom which, though
not entirely exclusive or unsympathetic, seemed incapable of change or
advance. That nothing but reform from the outside would avail to alter
the existing system, had already been demonstrated by the politics of
the age. Its most characteristic decisions — Sacheverell's acquittal, the
rejection of Wood's Halfpence, and of the Excise Bill — owed much, if
not everything, to the stormy outbursts of national feeling or of mob
violence. So, again, the most effective attempts at church reform were
to come from without ; for it was only an outside organisation, unaffected
by existing institutions, which could break free from the traditions of
stagnation and appeal to the vast mass of the people. This unconscious
tendency is exhibited by the number of religious societies, which antici-
pated the work of Wesley by sixty years. So early as 1678, small
societies, composed of orthodox Churchmen, sought by intimate religious
intercourse " to quicken each other's affections towards spiritual things."
All these societies were primarily formed by men who sought to save
their own souls, and it marks a serious reaction against the selfish
individualism of the age, that they were all eventually directed towards
saving the bodies and souls of others, to relieving unemployment, to
promoting education, or providing for the needs of the poor. During
the first thirty years of the century their numbers increased, and they
became an active and important religious force ; but, by the middle of
The Welsh Revival. — William Law. 81
the century, their vitality gradually sank, though they had borne a brave
witness for religious idealism at a time of need. All these societies were,
without exception, composed of members of the Established Church;
but official prelacy chilled, if it did not disavow, them. Anything that
savoured of originality, of indecorous fervour, was an object of alarm and
suspicion, and was denounced as "enthusiasm'." If this was the attitude
of church dignitaries towards movements and associations which were un-
questionably orthodox, it is no wonder that they showed more hostility to
the movements heralded by such men as Griffith Jones, George Whitefield,
and John Wesley.
The Welsh Revival of the period beginning with 1735 (which was
due, in large part, to Griffith Jones) is a singular, and an almost exact,
anticipation of Methodism. Griffith Jones experienced a spiritual con-
version about the same time as Whitefield, and was moved to preach the
tidings to others. All the signs of intense emotion, which Wesley and
Whitefield were to awake in thousands of meetings at a later date, were
present among the congregations of Griffith Jones, and of his fellow-
evangelists, whom he raised up and trained. His organising skill was
manifested in the foundation of a system of circulating schools, and in
general the Welsh Revival is of great importance, because it foreshadows
most of the peculiar developments of Methodism, and because it marks
the beginning of an even more formidable secession from the Establish-
ment than that which Methodism brought about in England.
As the Welsh Revival anticipates one aspect of Methodism, the early
writings of William Law (whom John Wesley at one time " took for an
oracle") foreshadow anbther. Indeed, the deepest source of religious in-
spiration in the eighteenth century seems to be reached in this passage
in his Serums Call to a Devout and Holy Life : " If, therefore, persons
of either sex... desirous of perfection, should unite themselves into little
societies, professing voluntary poverty, virginity, retirement, and devo-
tion, that some might be relieved by their charities, and all be blessed
with their prayers, and benefited by their example ;. . .such persons would
be, so far from being chargeable with any superstition, or blind devotion,
that they might justly be said to restore that piety, which was the
boast and glory of the Church, when, its greatest saints were alive."
The revival of religion in England will always remain linked with
the names of George Whitefield and John Wesley, each an ordained
clergyman of the Church of England, and each, despite himself, the
* The use of the word " enthusiasm '' in the sense of " fanaticism " in the
eighteenth century is singularly characteristic of the age. Any ill-regulated impulse
came under this head, and it was a favourite term for discrediting an opponent,
especially a religious one. [In an age when political stability was the chief aim of
society, and when the clergy figured as a kind of spiritual police, the use of the
term is intelligible. Any irresponsible movement might be a political danger;
and hence Wesley warns his followers, and Chatham cautions his nephew, against
giving way to enthusiasm.]
c. M. B. VI. ca. II. 6
82 Early years of Whitefield and Wesley.
t ,
founder of a sect in separation from it. They were closely associated
with each other; each admired the other's gifts and loved his friend-
ship ; but — except for their earnest piety — no two men were ever more
dissimilar. Whitefield was the first religious preacher of his age,
an unexampled orator, impetuous and earnest, emotional rather than
thoughtful, a revolutionary who broke through old forms before he
lealised the consequences of his action. John Wesley was of another
type ; he was a great preacher, but a far greater organiser ; his nature
was the reverse of sentimental; his cold, keen intellect contrasts with
the warm impulsiveness of Whitefield, as did his dislike of mysticism
(for all his dependence on superstition), his hatred of irregularities,
his appreciation of scholarship, order, and refinement. The respective
evolution of the two great branches of Methodism — Calvinistic and
Wesleyan — harmonises closely with the character and views of these two
men. Whitefield is ever in the van, leading forlorn hopes or exploring
new continents ; Wesley is more slow and calculating, advancing oftener
along trodden paths, reaping from fields already sown, and, for that
reason, making his influence the more enduring and momentous.
The origin of Methodism is ascribed to the year 1729, when the
name was bestowed on a small society at Oxford of whom the best
known were Charles Wesley, his elder brother, John, and Whitefield,
who joined in 1733. The society, though it differed little from the
preceding private religious societies, encountered such scorn and abuse
at Oxford that even Whitefield confesses to having often visited the
Wesleys in secret. Private prayer, religious communings with one
another, visitation of the sick, of the poor, and of criminals in gaols:
these were the aims of the society and the cause of the ridicule to
which it was exposed. By the end of 1737, when Whitefield started
for America, he had not only experienced a spiritual conversion whose
effects on his life were to be permanent, but had already become a very
famous preacher. The two Wesleys (John and Charles) had preceded
him to Georgia (October, 1735) in the brave hope of converting the
" poor heathen " in America. On the voyage, John Wesley came into
contact with some pious Germans; on his return to England (after a
not very successful ministry in Georgia) he encountered the Moravian
preacher Peter Bohler, whose earnest simplicity produced a spiritual
revolution in him (May, 1738), and induced him to journey to Herrnhut,
where for three months he studied Moravian principles at their fountain-
head. His career, up to this point, as he frequently assures us, had
been principally marked by a desire to save his own soul. Hence-
forward, he was assured of his own salvation, but " felt his heart burn
within him " to tell his message to other men ; and he soon found
an opportunity for doing this on a scale unknown to the religious life
of the age. At Oxford, Whitefield tells us, "the Wesleys were the
first who openly desired to confess Christ"; but, in 1739, says John
Work of Whitefield and Wesley. 83
Wesley, it was Whitefield who reconciled " myself. . .to this straaige way
of preaching in the fields."
Whitefield was anxious to go to America, but wished to find someone
to continue his work at Bristol, where he had excited extraordinary
enthusiasm by preaching in the fields among the colliers of Kingswood.
These men — hitherto the most neglected and degraded of humanity —
had shown real signs of amendment under Whitefield's charge, who now
persuaded the hesitating John Wesley to undertake their care. While
Whitefield was sailing to Georgia, John Wesley "proclaimed in the
highways the glad tidings of salvation, speaking from a little eminence
in a ground adjoining to the city (Bristol), to about three thousand
people." From this day, April 2, 1739, may be reckoned a new era in
the religious history of England ; for her greatest religious leader between
Cromwell and Newman had found his way to the hearts of her people.
To narrate in detail the further experiences of Wesley and Whitefield
is impossible, but a few words may indicate their influence, their methods,
and their triumphs. Both were consumed by a burning desire to save
souls, to go on "spiritual huntings" for the welfare of all mankind;
and, since the days of St Francis Xavier, none had journeyed so far or
toiled so earnestly to win the fame of Evangelists. These devoted men
travelled five thousand miles a year, rode fetlock-deep in snow or mud
on English roads, journeyed wearily afoot over trackless Scotch moors
or by blazed paths in American forests, and shrank from no toil and no
danger in order to preach their personal Gospel. Wesley traversed the
British Isles from North Scotland to Land's End (not forgetting Man
and the Scilly Isles), whilst Whitefield was more often seen in America
than in England, Unimagined numbers in two hemispheres must have
listened to their words, for each was accustomed to preach twenty times a
week, and to audiences that were claimed to have sometimes reached to
thirty thousand. At first they endeavoured to preach in churches ; but,
when incumbents forbade them, they took to preaching in the fields, now
speaking on a bare hillside, now in a gaol, now in a back street in a
crowded city, now on a village green, now from a tombstone in a
churchyard, now even on the roof of a pigstye. Nothing deterred them
or lessened their congregations. Wesley preferred to preach at five in
the morning, without ever lacking auditors at that time, any more than
when he preached in the evening in the open dinging torrents of rain,
his face illumined by lightning-flashes. They feared the fury of mobs
even less than that of the elements, and stood unmoved when crowds
rushed on them, now impelled by sectarian bitterness, now drawn by
mere curiosity, now merely riotous and dnmken. Often the preacher
was struck with stones, jostled or crushed by the crowd, his clothes torn,
his body bruised, his face battered with blows ; often, again, his fearless
demeanour awed a hostile crowd into silence, and then into shamefaced
reverence. As the sermon progressed, the crowd underwent extraordinary
CH. II. 6—2
84 Characters and achievements of Whitefield and Wesley.
emotions, some shouting out boastfully that they were kings, others con-
fessing themselves sinners ; yet others burst into songs of thanksgiving
and praise, writhed in convulsions, foaming at the mouth, or dropped
down motionless as dead. Results such as these were produced by the
sermons of both men ; but the effects of Whitefield's oratory were some-
times even more extraordinary. Despite Dr Johnson's sneer, Whitefield
was able to impress the educated ; he won admiration from so complete
a technical master of rhetoric as Garrick ; he carried away such convinced
worldlings as Pulteney and Chesterfield ; and, when he addressed a less
cultured audience, thousands were sometimes bathed in tears, while the
fainting and the convulsed were carried away like the " wounded from a
battlefield." His farewell sermon in America on September 29, 1770,
spoken with a premonition of coming death, "I go, I go to a rest
prepared; my sun has arisen" — has no parallel and no equal for im-
mediate effect in the clerical oratory of modem times.
That enormous influence may be exerted by a great orator on an
audience highstrung by an appeal to its deepest emotions is a familiar
fact in spiritual psychology, and Whitefield is only remarkable for the
degree of emotional response which his preaching produced. Wesley,
not the equal of Whitefield as an orator, could exercise in the intimate
circle of his friends, in small meetings of committees, on the conference
of his preachers as a whole, an influence perhaps more remarkable and.
certainly more unique. None of his followers questioned his decisions,
and, even if he sought (and he very seldom sought) to devolve some of
his authority, they persisted in referring everything to him. This faculty
of commanding obedience, of awaking inspiration, and his general aspect
of imperious tyrannic strength, has induced a not very apt comparison
between him and two of the grea,test of statesmen. Wesley was deficient
in imaginative power, and in his creative genius and capacity for
organisation he resembles Loyola or Colbert far more than Chatham or
Richelieu. It is strange that a man, whose objects were so disinterested,
lofty and pure, should have had so firm a grasp of the realities of life, of
business, finance, and administration. Wherever Whitefield passed he
left memories of overwhelming passion and eloquence, wherever Wesley
passed he left more enduring memorials in the shape of schools, mission-
rooms, meeting-places, and unions for prayer, for charity, and for self-
help. Not one of his creations was original ; but he lent a new meaning
and force to them all, especially to the class meeting, the most peculiar
and characteristic feature of Methodism. A vast organisation of lay
preachers — constructed on a system acknowledged to be a model for
ecclesiastical institutions — is the most remarkable result of his work;
and to this more than anything else is due the fact that it has endured,
and that the waves of religious emotion were not lost in space.
The relations of Whitefield and Wesley to the Establishment have an
interest and a pathos rarely equalled; for the one seceder left it only with
Wesley mid the Establishment. 85
the greatest sorrow, and the other always denied that he had left it at
all. The general attitude and character of Whitefield, his utter scorn of
conventions, his generous rashness, his serious doctrinal differences with
the orthodox theology, make it impossible to suppose that he could have
permanently remained in a Church so wedded to tradition and the existing
order of things. The case of Wesley is very different; much of the
atmosphere and doctrine of the Church of England was congenial to him,
and, during his later years, hostility towards him so declined that many
clergymen allowed him to preach in churches from which they had once
excluded him. This fact suggests that a separation, though probable, was
not inevitable. Such a separation was certainly not directly sought by
either Wesley or by the established hierarchy, which never took any
collective action against him. It was, indeed, rather their indifference
to the institutions which he was creating than their active opposition
which had so large a share in producing separation. Wesley's lay preachers
were very carefully supervised by him, were distinctly limited in their
functions, and rigorously subjected to those of the ordained clergy, who
cast in their lot with Methodism. Had more care been taken to regularise
this institution of lay preachers, as might have been the case had there
been an EngUsh episcopate in America, separation might have been
averted. As it was, the lay preachers felt bound to trespass on the
functions and influence of the incumbents of parishes, whenever these
proved hostile, or the bishops indifferent; and they thus supplied the
strongest material incentive to separation. An organisation external to
the Church, having failed to reform, was logically bound to abandon, it.
Wesley had created an imperium in imperio, and had caused a contest
between two different kinds of organisation within the limits of one
Church. But, paradoxically enough, this was not the most powerful cause
of separation, for the spirit is more important than the letter and the form.
Wesley's whole spiritual development was, in reality, a slow emancipation
from the conventions and organisations which history and tradition had
furnished to the Establishment. Wesley's father had bequeathed to his
son a passionate devotion to the Church, but the son's spiritual awaken-
ing had taught him the relative unimportance of forms and rules —
in comparison with direct spiritual appeals. Even in his early days he
had declared that power could be given to a presbyter to act as a
bishop over the souls of men, and in his unrivalled religious experience
he beheld simple appeals to faith working apparently miraculous changes
in hundreds of men. It is therefore small wonder that he gradually
began to cast aside his old love of order, regularity and form, and
sought to judge everything by its simple apparent worth as an instru-
ment of righteousness. Lord Acton has placed the crucial date in this
spiritual transformation at December 1, 1767, and Wesley's journal of
that day shows clearly (though almost unconsciously) that he had begun
to conceive salvation as outside the Church, that he desired a return to
86 Wesley's separation from the Establishment.
the simplicity of evangelical days, and to the "plain word, He that
feareth God, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with Him." Hence-
forth, more than ever, his lay organisation was to him the heart and
soul of his religion, the ecclesiastical one the mere frame and body
of it. He who thinks on the real significance of things will place the
act of separation in 1767 rather than 1784.
Thus the two strongest motives of separation were present and
working towards fissure, the external difficulty of reconciling two
opposed organisations, and Wesley's inward spiritual conviction that
righteousness lay in the heart of man rather than in the mechanism
of his faith. During the sixties his lay preachers began to administer
the sacrament, and, finally, in 1784, Wesley, taking on himself the
episcopal function (there being still no bishop in America), ordained
ministers to that continent, and shortly afterwards also to Scotland.
No Church which holds strongly to episcopal ordination could suffer this,
and the highest legal authority of the eighteenth century pronounced
that " ordination meant separation." Wesley — with a logic consistent
with this spiritual position — refused to admit that a mere external act
could thus affect his spiritual relations to the Church.
On Wesley's death (March 2, 1791) his followers speedily acknow-
ledged a separation which the majority of them both approved and
desired. Wesley during his last years had stood almost alone in his
desire to preserve the union, and, with an amiable inconsistency, had
never shown more outward devotion to the Establishment than in the
years after 1767. Perhaps an extract from his journal (of January 2,
1748), when he was refused the sacrament at Epworth, where his father
had once been rector, may typify, as in allegory, his personal attitude
on the whole question of his relations with the Establishment : " How
wise a God is our God ! There could not have been so fit a place
under heaven, where this should befall me first as my father's house,
the place of my nativity, and the very place where, 'according to
the straitest sect of our religion,' I had so long ' lived a Pharisee ' !
It was also fit, in the highest degree, that he who repelled me from that
very table, where I had myself so often distributed the bread of life,
should be one who owed his all in this world to the tender love which
my father had shown to his, as well as personally to himself."
All the great changes of the eighteenth century, religious or social,
political or industrial, profoundly as they differed in character, were
similar in that they were produced by a resolute minority of men,
pessimistic as to the past and present, and optimistic as to the future.
Hence, they had no hesitation in applying unsparing criticism to existing
conditions, or in constructing ideal plans for future ages ; and this fact
accounts alike for their extraordinary triumphs and equally extraordinary
failures. The men who produced the religious revival in England were
Political views of Wesley. 87
really only three — Whitefield the orator, John Wesley the organiser,
and Charles Wesley the poet of the movement. All of them were pro-
foimdly impressed with the blackness and despair of the past and the
present, all hoped, desired, and believed that the future would be rich
in promise, that their triumphs would be great, and the sway of their
gospel irresistible. As in all other cases, their achievement fell far
short of their ideal ; but they effected a transformation at once so
sudden in its appearance and so far-reaching in its effect, that what
would have been a marvel in any age appears a miracle in this.
No great personality in this age came into such vivid and direct
contact with the masses as John Wesley ; hence, his general social and
political influence is of more importance than is usual with religious
leaders. He was, indeed, too much a child of his age — in some of its
faults — not to exercise great influence upon it, and the unworldly part
of his character is strangely mingled with a singular practical shrewdness.
For instance, his politics were very definitely partisan; but he had a
strange independence of outlook. The King in his coronation robes
excited in him no awe, and was described by him as swathed in ermine
blankets, adorned with a huge heap of borrowed hair, and with glittering
baubles; the nobles were triflers unaware of their latter end ; the lawyers
were dishonest and self-seeking; British landlords in Ireland were ab-
sentees, careless of their tenants, and working for the depopulation of
the country ; the Slave Trade (which even Chatham defended) was that
"execrable sum of all villainies." It may surprise anyone who reads
these opinions in his journal to discover that his general views were
strongly conservative, and that he was not only a Tory, but even
supposed to support the Divine Right of Kings. He never ceased to
denounce all disobedience to the law and to the sovereign ; his con-
demnation descended upon Jacobites and American Revolutionists ;
and his fiercest invective was poured upon the smugglers and wreckers
of Cornwall. As he never had the slightest fear or reserve in pro-
claiming his views, and as he appealed most particularly to the poor
and ignorant, his influence must have contributed most powerfully
towards preserving the existing frame of society, especially when the
shocks of the French Revolution were already being felt. Dissenters of
other kinds were inclined to favour the Revolution ; from the first,
Wesleyans met it with rigid hostility — an attitude of which it is diflScult
to exaggerate the national importance. The teaching of the one man
who had really stirred the masses in the middle of the century went all
towards allaying their excitement at its close, and the Duke of Wellington
found no better soldiers than those that were Methodists.
The general influence of Wesley was far less happy. He was
descended from a stem and heroic race, and inherited a singular fervour
and sense of duty, as well as a cm^ious hardness and rigour. Some of
these faults he was never able to conquer, and his denunciations of harm-
88 Wesley's influence on religious life.
less gaieties and of art show some inconsistency, exceptional narrowness,
and a curious Puritanism. He advocated card-playing, but denounced
dancing and ordinary pleasures ; desired toleration, but refused to extend
it to Catholics ; had some enlightened views on education, but wished to
establish schools where there should be no vacations, and universities
where there should be lectures for every day in the year. All these
singular eccentricities (which were of no very amiable kind) were due to
his defects in imaginative vision, which could not break entirely free from
the trammels of tradition and environment.
The religious effect — which Wesley produced upon the Establish-
ment— was neither obvious nor immediate. Religious thought, instead
of growing more liberal, became more narrow, controversy more embittered
and sterile ; and we pass from the philosophic temper and literary grace
of Butler and Law to the dreary aridities of Paley. Religious life in the
Establishment underwent no immediate marked improvement ; rather —
by reaction against Wesleyanism — it deteriorated. It became even more
formal and less emotional, and the worship of decorum and etiquette was
more pronounced than ever — even Butler telling Whitefield that pre-
tending to be inspired by the Holy Ghost was " a horrid thing, a very
horrid thing." None the less, the leaven was slowly penetrating, and the
Wesleyan emotional influence worked within as well as without the
Establishment. The Evangelical movement, which began about 1780,
and which profoundly influenced every side of the national life, was mainly
an adaptation of Wesley's methods and ideas by men who remained
inside the pale of the Establishment; and his direct influence is apparent
in many of the Evangelical aims, especially in their noble desire to abolish
the Slave Trade, and in their general hmnanitarian impulses.
On the general religious life of the country, so far as it lay outside
the Establishment, both Whitefield and Wesley made the profoundest
impression, and the followers of both — counted by thousands at their
deaths — are now reckoned by millions. Not only the Church of England,
but the Dissenting bodies likewise, had been afifected by the prevailing
materialism and stagnation of the age. Methodism mediated between
the two religious bodies, brought them more into harmony with one
another, and gave to each the breath of a new and invigorating life.
Congregationalism, like the Establishment, had worked by old methods,
and had leaned too near the doctrines of religious individualism. Wesley
and Whitefield changed all this, when they showed an astonished world
that souls could be won in the hedges and the byways, and that the
people, who had displayed a remarkable susceptibility to political, made
a still further response to religious, agitators. Introspection — the value
of knowing one's own soul aright — the blessedness of religious certainty
and conviction — all these came with a rush of force and passion to
untaught minds and untutored impulses. To the upper classes, in part
over-educated and in part unspiritual, Wesleyanism never ceased to be
General results of Methodism. 89
something of a mystery. Wesley was thought an actor by Horace Walpole,
whose class as a whole despised " enthusiasm," and loathed a movement
which sought to raise the " common wretches " above their station.
Whitefield and Wesley had to face the formidable hostility of many
members of the upper class; but, on the other hand, the unconventionality
of their methods aided their success among the poor. Bolingbroke —
when the House of Lords was closed to him — spoke no more in public ;
Wesley, when the churches were shut, preached in the fields. As the
medieval scholastic thinker anticipated the modem democratic philo-
sopher, so the eighteenth century field-preacher may claim to have
foreshadowed the modem platform speech and mass meeting. The
whole population of a remote village or country town, where strangers
were very rare, came out to hear the far-travelled preacher, and were
under the spell of excitement before he had uttered a word. The
disorder thus occasioned affords a poor and partial excuse for the
severity which induced magistrates to press, fine, or imprison offending
preachers. The mob in many towns — with a less calculating brutality —
enabled Wesleyans (like Anglicans and Jesuits in other days) to claim
the title of martyrs, though in this case they only beat, stoned, flogged,
or flung them into water. In a brutalised age the spectacle of men —
and even of delicate women — willing to endure these cruelties for the
sake of their faith, must have been impressive enough. Indeed, the
real reason of the success of Methodism was that its teachers, and
especially its chief leader, were ready to endure anything to bring home
the glad conviction of salvation to all minds. In the most intellectual
of ages, it is the glory of Methodism to have appealed to the heart, and
to have restored emotion — not always indeed the best kind of emotion —
to its rightful place in religion. Such an effect as this upon a people
may not be weighed in the statistical balance or measured with the
numerical rod.
Wesleyanism was partly Puritanical in its effects, and opposed
outbursts of emotion except when they followed certain recognised
channels. Hence, it was generally unfavourable to art and literature —
with one conspicuous exception. Many of its converts were hymn-
writers, who expressed themselves in words as simple and touching as
their thoughts, and of these far the greatest was Charles Wesley the
brother of John. His hymns — besides being something new in eighteenth
century literature — are the purest revelation of its religious feeling, and
embody, far more fitly than any recorded words of Whitefield or Wesley,
the truest and tenderest aspects of Methodism. Hymns like Jesu, Lover
of my Soul are worth all the histories that have ever been written, as a
revelation of the true power of Methodism, and teach us the secret,
which brought men — degraded and brutalised beyond expression — to
listen to John Wesley, as if he were a prophet of God, and to Whitefield
as though he were an angel from Heaven.
90
CHAPTEE III.
JACOBITISM AND THE UNION.
In an earlier volume the history of Scotland has been followed to
the point at which her political fusion with England in 1707 promised
identity of activity based upon uniformity of interest and outlook.
In fact, the half-century that followed the Union tested its reality
and permanence almost to the breaking-point. The Union of 1603
had produced a similar crisis. Menacing the distinctive Protestantism
adopted by Scotland as most consonant with her national temperament,
it excited opposition in a true sense national. The Union of 1707
eventually satisfied the commercial ambitions to satisfy which Scotland
had sacrificed her separate political entity and had placed her Church,
by association with the southern Establishment, in danger of a re-
newal of the Stewart policy of harmonisation. The magnitude of the
sacrifice, together with the failure of the Union at once to yield the
anticipated results, again stimulated national sentiment. But, as the
century proceeded, the danger of nationalism repeating the menace of
the Covenant vanished — a result due less to a dulling of sentimental
retrospect, than to a recognition that Protestantism itself was involved in
the permanence of the Union. Had Jacobitism raised a Protestant banner,
the conflict between sentiment and material interests must have been
acute. But it presented itself in the guise of the Counter-Reformation :
France and Spain stood behind it : its Pretenders were pensioners of the
Vatican, and the last of its titular kings was a Cardinal of the Roman
Church. Jacobitism depended also upon other forces which may be
termed reactionary, inasmuch as Celticism and Stewartism were practically
synonymous. Hence, a cause which oflFered to rally Scottish nationalism
furnished the most convincing reason for the Union's continuance, and
provoked measures which completed it by extending to the Highlands
social and political systems which for centuries the Lowlands and England
had followed in common.
The Act of Union took effect on May 1, 1707. Anticipating it, and
taking advantage of a tariff lower in Scotland than in England, Scottish
merchants had warehoused imports, particularly French wines and
1705-8] Provisions of the Act of Union. 91
spirits, in readiness to launch them lucratively into England after May 1.
The House of Commons (April 7, 1707) passed a measure to prohibit
the speculative traffic, and though the Lords did not proceed with the
BiU, Scottish resentment was not appeased. The tardy payment of the
"equivalent" also caused annoyance. It was payable on May 1, 1707,
but did not reach Edinburgh until the following August 5. The fact
that only ^^100,000, roughly one-quarter of the amount, was in specie
and the remainder in Exchequer bills roused suspicion. But the prompt
and easy conversion of the bills, and the restitution of the capital of the
ill-fated "Company of Scotland trading to Africa and the Indies,"
restored confidence in England's intention to observe the conditions of
the Union. The adjustment of Scotland's fiscal system to that of
England had been provided for in the sixth article of the Act. The
Scottish farmers of the Customs and Excise were replaced by two mixed
Commissions, while the adjustment of the Excise to English measures
and methods of collection confirmed apprehension that the Union would
entail upon Scotland a contribution to the Exchequer out of proportion
to her resources. Smuggling elevated itself forthwith to the plane of
patriotism. Side by side with irritating fiscal innovations, and to a large
extent to support them, the institution of Justices of the Peace, whose
functions had been defined in a Scottish Act of 1661, was revived as
from September 2 or 16, 1707, according as the locality was south or
north of the Tay, with the powers conferred by English pre-Union Acts
of Parliament. The abolition of the Scottish Privy Council as from
May 1, 1708, which passed (February 13, 1708) in the form of an
" Act for rendering the Union of the Two Kingdoms more entire and
complete," deepened the popular impression of the Union as the sur-
render of Scotland's independence and sovereignty, and was protested
against as an infringement of the treaty, since the powers vested by
the Act in Justices of the Peace were held to trespass upon the heritable
jurisdictions confirmed in the twentieth article. A Court of Exchequer
in Scotland was constituted as from May 1, 1708 (6 Anne, cap. 26).
Events in Scotland had been followed closely at Saint-Germain, where
the titular James III and VIII resided. Without the strenuous qualities
of his son Charles Edward, James was eager to attempt the recovery
of the kingdoms his father had lost, and France's fortunes in the War
of the Spanish Succession inclined Louis to stimulate James' adherents
to activity. In August, 1705, his agent. Colonel Nathaniel Hooke,
arrived in Scotland. Louis professed lively interest in the maintenance
of Scottish autonomy. But Jacobitism for the moment preferred to
remain passive, at least until sympathy took material shape. Marl-
borough's victory at Ramillies, Eugene's at Turin, and the progress of
the Archduke Charles in Spain, revived Louis' scheme to exploit
Jacobitism : Hooke again arrived in Scotland, in April, 1707, shortly
before the Union came into effect. He found the party divided as to
92 James' expedition to Scotland. [irov-s
the wisdom of a resort to arms. The Duke of Hamilton, who had received
Hooke in 1705, now pleaded illness as an excuse for refusing an interview.
He intimated that a rising woxild be futile unless James secured a consider-
able party in England, and was liberally supported by French troops.
Hooke's instructions (March 9, 1707), however, were to commit Louis
to no conditions. From Ker of Kersland he received an egregious
assurance that a supply of gunpowder, James' presence, and his under-
taking to secure the Protestant religion, w^ould bring out 5000 Came-
ronians and 8000 "other Presbyterians." Hooke, in his own words,
" now thought only of rendering the design more general," approached
the Duke of AthoU's section of the party, and obtained from them an
engagement (May 7, 1707) to raise 30,000 horse and foot to march into
England with James upon his arrival. The strength of the force to
accompany the Prince was left to Louis' discretion; 8000 men were
asked for in the event of his landing near the English border. Arms,
money, and officers were requested, and James weis urged to denounce
the Catholic policy of his father. Hooke returned forthwith to France
to report the result of his mission.
James' arrival in Scotland was looked for in August, 1707. The
opportunity was favourable; for, though the secret of Hooke's nego-
tiations had passed to the Government through Ker of Kersland, no
measures had been taken to meet the threatened rebellion. The castles
of Stirling, Blackness, and Dumbarton had but three barrels of powder
between them : the guns of the last two fortresses were either unmounted
or unserviceable: in Edinburgh Castle the "equivalent" was feebly
guarded: and the Earl of Leven, commanding-in-chief, could muster only
1500 " almost naked " troops. Not until January, 1708, however, were
James' adherents informed that Louis XIV, influenced, according to Saint-
Simon, by Madame de Maintenon, had resolved to place troops at their
disposal. On February 29 Charles Fleming was sent from Saint-Germain
to announce the French expedition as on the point of sailing, and to arrange
a service of signals and pilots in preparation for its arrival in the Firth
of Forth. On March 1 James drafted a proclamation "to his good
people of his ancient kingdom of Scotland." He reminded them that
" Usurpations have always been fatal and ruinous to the liberty of Scot-
land," and promised to annul the Union, to sanction an Act of Oblivion,
to maintain Protestants in the free exercise of their religion, and to
submit "differences about Church government" to a Scottish Parliament
for settlement. On March 7 James left Saint-Germain for Dunkirk, where
a fleet of five men-of-war with transports under Count de Forbin, and
an expeditionary force of six regiments and the Irish corps, number-
ing 5100 in all, under Marshal de Matignon (Count de Gace), had
assembled. The expedition had been planned to start on March 11 ;
but James inopportunely developed measles, and was barely convalescent
when Forbin loosed anchor on March 17. Closely pursued by Sir George
1708-12] The General Election, 1708. 93
Byng, Forbin made the Firth of Forth at nightfall on March 23 (March 12,
O. S.). The following day Byng hove in sight. Forbin's signals were
not answered from the shore: Byng threatened an engagement. The
French therefore dashed for the open sea and coasted northward.
James importunately demanded to be put on shore, but Forbin refused
in view of Byng's close pursuit. On April 7 (Match 27, O. S.), after a
stormy passage and with only nine ships in company, James returned
to Dunkirk.
Three months after James' abortive attempt, a general election
(June 17, 1708) gave Scotland her first opportmiity of sending to Par-
liament members elected by the constituencies. The election raised
important constitutional questions. Two shires (Aberdeen and Lin-
lithgow) returned a peer's eldest son. In accordance with the practice
of the Scottish Parliament the Commons (December 3, 1708) declared
them ineligible, and ordered (December 6) new elections in both counties.
In the election of the sixteen representative peers Queensberry's vote
was challenged on the ground that he was also a peer of Great Britain.
The votes of the few Scottish peers who were peers of England prior to
the Union were also objected to, and minor irregularities were alleged
to disqualify the votes of others. Upon the petition of four defeated
candidates the Lords conducted an enquiry, and ruled (January 21, 1709)
that a Scottish peer advanced to a post-Union peerage of Great Britain
was not entitled to vote in his own name or as a proxy at the election of
the representatives of his order. When two years later Hamilton was
created Duke of Brandon in the peerage of Great Britain, apprehension
of an enlargement of Scotland's influence in the Upper House caused the
Lords to resolve (December 20, 1711), by 57 to 52 votes, that Scottish
peers created peers of Great Britain after the Union were unable to
sit in the latter capacity. A majority of the Scottish representatives
condemned the resolution as a violation of the Union and as reducing
their order " to a worse condition, in some respects, than the meanest
or most criminal of subjects." The Queen sent a message to the Lords
on the matter (January 17, 1712) ; but the order was not reversed until
June 6, 1782.
The French attempt of 1708 was followed by the arrest of suspected
sympathisers. Hamilton's opportune agreement with the Whigs pro-
cured the release of all but five, who had drawn together under arms in
Stirlingshire in anticipation of James' landing. They were indicted for
High Treason at Edinburgh, but were discharged (November 22, 1708)
upon a verdict of "not proven." The verdict suggested that the Scottish
law of treason required adjustment to the English code. On March 28,
1709, an "Act for improving the Union of the Two Kingdoms" reached
the Commons from the Lords. It enacted (as from July 1, 1709) that
crimes regarded as High Treason by the law of England should be
regarded as such in Scotland; transferred the jmisdiction of the High
94 Greenshields' case. [1707-11
Court of Justiciary over such offences to special Commissions of Oyer
and Terminer, and established identical penalties for both countries.
In the Commons the measure was opposed by the Scottish members, but
was carried (April 9, 1709) with two amendments. By the first, estates
in land were declared non-forfeitable for treason beyond a single life.
By the second, the names of witnesses for the prosecution and a copy of
the indictment were to be submitted to the accused ten days before his
trial. With the addition of a clause providing that the amendments
should not come into force until the death of the Pretender and the
completion of three years of the reign of the Queen's successor, the
measure became law (April 21, 1709).
The Scottish Church meanwhile had reason to consider the conditions
of the Union disregarded. Such of the episcopal clergy as had qualified
under the "Act concerning the Church" of July 16, 1695, were excluded
from Church Courts and ordinations, but were free to conduct public
worship in their own way. Others, more numerous, were debarred by
an earlier Act (June 28, 1695) from administering the rites of marriage
and baptism, but (provided they had taken the Oath of Allegiance,
and the Assurance) were not expressly forbidden to minister in con-
venticles. Their public ministrations were tolerated by connivance,
not by law. English Protestant nonconformists enjoyed security of
worship under the Act of 1689. It had been foreseen that, although
Scottish nonconformity was riddled with Jacobitism, the Union would
make it difficult to withhold from it a legal status; since, apart from the
plea of symmetry, the Union drew the two episcopal communions into
more intimate relations. The English Book of Common Prayer was
increasingly adopted in Scotland, where episcopal worship was as yet
non-liturgical, and the General Assembly (April 21, 1707) passed an
Act condemning "set forms." The order was challenged by James
Greenshields, an episcopal minister. In 1709 he opened a chapel in
Edinburgh and used the Book of Common Prayer. Summoned by the
Presbytery for "presuming without authority to exercise the office of the
holy ministry," he exhibited his letters of ordination by the Bishop of
Boss in 1694, proved that he had taken the oaths, and denied the
Presbytery's jurisdiction over him. The Presbytery, contending that he
was "within their bounds," suspended him for introducing a form of
worship "contrary to the purity and uniformity of the Church established
by law," and on September 15, 1709, the magistrates convicted him for
Continued contumacy. He remained in prison for seven months, and
twice appealed unsuccessfully to the Court of Session. On February 13,
1710, he entered an appeal in the House of Lords, and obtained (March 1,
1711) a verdict reversing the decision of the Courts below.
Greenshields' case corrected the claim of the General Assembly to
exercise national jurisdiction, and was exploited to capture the sympathy
of English episcopacy for the sister communion in Scotland. On
1712-9] Toleration and patronage. 95
March 3, 1712, the royal assent was given to a Bill securing Scottish
episcopal nonconformists in the exercise of public worship and use of
the English liturgy, and repealing the Scottish Act of June 28, 1695.
The Bill passed the Commons (February 7, 1712) by 152 to 17 votes.
In the Lords, though the Commission of Assembly was heard by counsel
(February 13), their proposal that abjuration of the Pretender should be
required from tolerated episcopalians was extended to the Established
clergy as well. The former, provided they had taken the oaths and
produced letters of ordination from a Protestant Bishop, were given
liberty to conduct public worship, marriages, and baptisms. Tolerated
episcopacy was objectionable to Presbyterianism, but the Abjuration
Oath was trebly offensive. It submitted the Church to Erastian
discipline : imposed a test and thereby infringed the liberty which the
Union had guaranteed to the Establishment : and bound the subscriber
to maintain the succession " as the same is and stands settled " by the
Act of 1701 (12 and 13 William III, cap. 2), which required the
sovereign to "join in communion with the Church of England."
Scottish Protestantism resented a demand to maintain the exclusive
claims of the other Establishment, and the Government did not venture
to force the oath upon ministers who refused to take it. In 1715
(1 Geo. I, stat. 2, cap. 13) the oath was redrafted with verbal alterations
which allowed the subscriber to hold himself non-committed to the
conditions of the Act of 1701. In 1719 (5 Geo. I, cap. 29) reference
to that Act was omitted altogether from the oath.
Ten days after the Toleration Act received the royal assent, the
Commons gave leave (March 13, 1712) to introduce a Bill " to restore
the patrons to their ancient rights of presenting Ministers to the
churches vacant in Scotland." The measure commended itself to
episcopal and Jacobite patrons as a means to exclude ultra-Presbyterians
from the pulpits of the Church. But Jacobitism failed to capture them.
On the contrary, the raoderatism which the Act encouraged contributed
to consolidate the Union. Patronal appointment to church livings had
been twice abolished, in 1649 and 1690. The latter Act offered patrons
compulsory compensation for renunciation of their right of presentment:
vested the patronage of country benefices in the elders and Protestant
heritors, and of town benefices in the heritors and magistrates. The
new Act, which passed the Commons on April 7, 1712, restored to such
patrons as had not taken advantage of the Act of 1690 the patronage
of benefices in their gift after May 1, 1712, provided they had taken
the oaths and were purged of suspicion of Popery: conveyed to the
particular presbytery the patronage of a benefice to which the patron
failed to nominate within six months of a vacancy occurring: and
reserved to the Crown the presentation to benefices in the gift of the
Bishops before the abolition of Episcopacy in 1689. Notwithstanding
a petition of the Commission of Assembly, representing the measure as
96 The malt duty. [1707-24
violating the rights of which the Church was possessed at the Union,
the Act received the royal assent on May 22, 1712. On the same date
was repealed part of the Scottish " Act discharging the Yule Vacance "
(1690). The Court of Session and inferior judicatories were now
bidden to observe the Christmas vacation from December 20 to
January 10 inclusive yearly, a vexatious attempt to adjust Scottish
to English practice. This amending Act was repealed three years later
(September 21, 1715).
Since 1707 the United Parliament, in which Scotland's representation
was fractional, had passed Acts running counter in varying degrees to
principles which Scotland as an independent kingdom had deliberately
adopted. A measure of another character excited a demand for repeal of
the Union itself. By Article XIV of the treaty Scottish malt was exempt
from duty "during this present war." Although on May 9, 1713, the
Queen informed Parliament that the treaty with France had been signed,
peace with Spain had not been concluded formally. The point was
seized as a pretext for opposition to a proposal (May 18) to subject
Scottish malt to a sixpenny duty per bushel, uniform with the English
rate. ' The BiU passed the Commons (May 22) with a majority of 197
to 67 votes, the Scottish members opposing it as an infraction of the
terms of the Union, and as imposing a duty beyond what Scottish
malt was able to bear. Two of their number, with Argyll and Mar
from the Lords, waited upon the Queen (May 26) to represent that a
motion for the dissolution of the Union was contemplated. Anne's
timid hope "to make all things easy" did not discourage a campaign
of somewhat inflated protest. On June 1, the Earl of Findlater in the
Lords moved for leave to introduce a Bill to dissolve the Union. He
instanced the quashing of the Scottish Privy Council, the Treason Act,
the barring of the peerage of Great Britain against Scottish nobles,
and the threatened malt duty as grievances which justified disruption.
Mar seconded, and Argyll and the Whigs supported, the motion, chiefly
as a tactical move against the Tories. Findlater's motion was lost only
by four votes. Its single result was that the duty on Scottish malt,
though agreed to by the Lords (June 8), was suspended until 1724,
when the proposal was revived in another form.
In the last Parliament of Queen Anne, which assembled on February 16,
1714, the Queen's recent illness focused attention upon the crisis threat-
ened by her death. The Queen was petitioned to demand James' removal
from Bar-le-Duc in Lorraine, whither the Treaty of Utrecht had driven
him. A proclamation (Jime 23) offered ,£5000 — increased in August to
i8100,000 — for his apprehension should he attempt to land in Great
Britain. Both Bolingbroke and Oxford had been in touch with him
since the autumn of 1712. But James imposed conditions which made
it futile to act in his behalf. Rejecting Oxford's advice, he declared
(March 13, 1714) his resolution neither to change nor to dissemble his
1714-5] James' diplomacy. 97
religion. To Cardinal Gualterio, his agent at Rome, he expressed
himself at the same time with similar emphasis.
The premature death of the Queen in her forty-ninth year (August 1,
1714) disappointed the vague hopes of James founded upon her affection
for him. The English Tories feared to move for a Roman Catholic
claimant, and preferred to assume that a Hanoverian dynasty would
immediately collapse. The European situation also was discouraging.
The Hanoverian Succession had been recognised in the Utrecht pacifica-
tion, and there was for the moment no disposition in any quarter to
disturb it. Clement XI, intent upon the eastern assault of Islam
rather than upon the problematical chances of a western crusade, refused
(August, 1714) to approach the European Comets in James' behalf.
With difficulty James' appeal (March, 1715) drew a subsidy of 30,000
crowns from the Vatican. From the Emperor James received a clear
rebuiF; and efforts made in 1714 and 1715 to secure the hand of the
Emperor's sister, or that of one of his nieces, daughters of the late
Emperor Joseph, or of the daughter of Charles Philip of Neuburg
(brother of the Elector Palatine), failed to ensure to the Pretender a
backing from Catholic Germany. An appeal to Charles XII of Sweden
(July, 1715) promised better results. A Swedish descent upon Newcastle
was planned, and 50,000 crowns were transmitted by James to support it.
But in spite of Denmark's cession of Bremen to Hanover, Charles
refused (August 3) to take action. Most discouraging of all was the
attitude of France. A loan of 100,000 crowns was obtained upon
Louis' guarantee, and no objection was offered to the purchase of
arms and secret preparations in James' behalf. But Louis refused
(February, 1715) to take any course which would prejudice the main-
tenance of peace ; and, despite James' protest (July, 1715), Berwick's
services were denied him. The death of Louis (September 1, 1715)
handed over France to the Duke of Orleans, who held it more vital
to exclude the Spanish Bourbons from the French succession than to
encourage a Stewart restoration in England. On December 6 the Irish
officers in the French service were forbidden to proceed to Scotland.
Spain was as cautious as France, and James was surprised (December 12,
1715) at receiving so much as a subsidy.
In these disheartening circumstances James countered George I's
accession with no more effectual measure than a proclamation (August
29, 1714) asserting his hereditary right. But the vindictive spirit of
the Whig Parliament brought him adherents whose attachment so far
had been secret. Early in April, 1715, Bolingbroke fled to Paris.
On June 10 the Commons resolved to impeach him ; and, there being
no longer need for caution, he accepted (July) the seals as James'
Secretary of State. The Duke of Ormond, whose impeachment the
Commons voted on June 21, and Mar, whose professions of loyalty
failed to gain George's favour, remained in England to concert
0. M. H. VI. CH. III. 7
98 Mar raises the standard. [i7i5
measures. Their plans were marked by the ineptitude inseparable from
Jacobite enterprise. About July 15, a verbal communication from
England determined James, without consulting Berwick, Bolingbroke, or
Torcy, the French Foreign Minister, to appoint July 31 for a rising
and to give it the encouragement of his presence. Shortly before his
proposed departure (July 28) from Bar, James received a joint report
from Mar and Ormond, representing that unless an army accompanied
him a general insurrection was impracticable. On August 3 Bolingbroke
therefore conveyed to James the unanimous opinion of Berwick, Torcy,
and himself that the situation was not ripe for action. Ten days later
(August 2, O. S.) Mar boarded a collier in the Thames and sailed to
Scotland. Before he reached his destination, Ormond had taken flight
and was in Paris.
Mar arrived at his Castle of Kildrummy in Aberdeenshire on
August 20, 1715. Berwick's accusation of collusion between James
and Mar to force the situation must be dismissed: but Mar cannot
escape censure for precipitately plunging Scotland into civil war. Before
he left London he was aware that James had cancelled his order for an
immediate rising, and the Prince's instructions only empowered him to
take the field in " the last extremity." On September 6 he raised the
standard at Braemar. The ceremony was repeated at Aberdeen by the
Earl Marischal, at Dunkeld by the Marquis of TuUibardine, at Gordon
Castle by the Marquis of Huntly, at Brechin by the Earl of Panmure,
at Montrose by the Earl of Southesk, at Dundee by the titular Viscovmt
of Dundee, and at Inverness by William Mackintosh of Borlum. The
Jacobites of Perth mastered the town (September 18) and proclaimed
James there also. A plot to seize Edinburgh Castle had all but
succeeded (September 8). On September 28 Mar entered Perth. By
October 9 the accession of Farquharsons, Atholl Highlanders, Robertsons
of Struan, Gordons, Breadalbane's Campbells, Mackintoshes, Drummonds,
and Lowland contingents, brought Mar's strength to 6000 foot and
about 600 horse. In the west, Macdonalds, Macleans, Macgregors, and
Glenmoriston Grants were in arms to harass the Campbell country. In
the south, on both sides of the border, the Jacobites were stirring:
James was proclaimed at Warkworth on October 9, and at Lochmaben
on October 13.
Meanwhile the Government showed none of the lethargy of 1708.
On July 20, 1715, the royal assent was given to an "Act for preventing
tumults," which obliged an assemblage of twelve or more persons to
disperse upon proclamation by a single magistrate. On July 23 the
Habeas Corpus Act was suspended; and, a month later (August 30), the
royal assent was given to an Act which decreed the penalties of High
Treason against owners and occupiers of land in Scotland supporting the
Pretender by acts committed in or out of the country ; the loyal vassals
of a rebellious superior were converted into tenants of the Crown ; his
1715-6] Mackintosh enters England. 99
loyal tenants and tacksmen were released for two years from paying
rent; the lands of a rebellious vassal reverted to his loyal superior;
collusive settlements made since August 1, 1714, were declared void;
and from September 1, 1715, until January 23, 1716, the Commissioners
of Justiciary were empowered to summon suspected persons of Scottish
domicile to Edinburgh or elsewhere to find bail for their peaceable
behaviour. About September 8 a camp was formed at Stirling to secure
the fords of the Forth. The Duke of Argyll, commanding-in-chief, set
out thither from Edinburgh on September 16, and found himself at the
head of some 1800 men. Reinforcements were ordered from Ireland;
and the United Provinces were called upon under treaty obligations
to furnish eight regiments of foot and one of horse, 6000 in all.
Parliament had already (July 25 and 26) sanctioned the raising of
7000 horse and foot and the calling-up of half-pay officers. An addi-
tion of 6000 men to the fleet was also agreed to (August 11). In
Scotland Argyll's appeal for volunteers met with a loyal response on the
part of Edinburgh, Glasgow, and the towns of the south and south-west.
On September 28, the Earl of Sutherland arrived at Dunrobin to raise
the loyal northern clans ; and, about October 6, Argyll's brother, the
Earl of Islay, was sent into the west to rally the Campbells.
In spite of his numerical superiority. Mar remained inactive at
Perth. His commission (September 7, 1715) as Commander-in-chief
reached him on October 6 ; and the capture at Burntisland (October 2)
of arms and powder destined for Sutherland partially stocked his empty
magazines. But he preferred to play a waiting game until James'
arrival, and meanwhile to implicate English Jacobitism. In the first
week of October the coast towns of Fife and their shipping were
secured. On October 12 Mackintosh of Borlum, embarking detach-
ments at Pittenweem, Crail, Elie, and other ports, crossed to North
Berwick with about 1100 men. On Mar's western front the appearance
of Macdonalds and others before Inveraray (October 19) threatened an
enveloping movement which would make Argyll's situation precarious.
But the withdrawal of the clans from before Inveraray (October 25)
destroyed the symmetry of Mar's tactical design, and Mackintosh
imperilled the execution of his mission by a dash upon Edinburgh
(October 14). He was within a mile of the city when the arrival
of Argyll, and the militant posture of the citizens, caused him to
take shelter in Leith fort. On the following morning (October 15)
Argyll summoned Mackintosh to surrender ; but, having no artillery, he
withdrew to make preparations for dislodging the insurgents next day.
Before daybreak (October 16) Mackintosh transferred his force to Seton
Castle. A few hours later Mar, apprised of his subordinate's situation,
advanced upon Stirling, thereby compelling Argyll's return. A week
later (October 22) Mackintosh joined the Northumberland and Galloway
insurgents at Kelso.
CH. in. 7 — 2
100 Sheriffmuir. [i7j5
Three weeks of inaction followed Mar's return to Perth (October 18).
His feint upon Stirling might have become a general advance but for
Argyll's timely reinforcement and the failure of the clans in the west.
On October 25 they retired from before Inveraray towards Strathfillan.
Thence, reinforced by the Camerons and Stewarts of Appin, who
had refused to appear against Inveraray, they marched to join Mar,
and encamped at Auchterarder about November 1. In number they
were about 2500. A week later Seaforth's Mackenzies, Sir Donald
Macdonald of Sleat's following, and others, in all about 2000, arrived
at Perth. Mar's levies were now complete, and a general advance
against Argyll was resolved upon (November 9). Assuming incor-
rectly that Argyll would not move from Stirling, Mar on November 10
marched from Perth, about 8000 strong, horse and foot, with eleven
cannon, indifferently supplied with powder and ammunition. On No-
vember 12 the clans, marching in advance, were a little beyond Ardoch
when Mar learnt that Argyll was already between him and Dunblane.
Mar hastened up his main body, and that night the whole army
encamped at Kinbuck.
Late in October Argyll had received the reinforcements summoned
from Ireland. Upon the news of Mar's advance from Perth, he resolved
to give him battle in front of Dunblane ; for the slopes of the Ochils
favoured the operations of cavalry, and Argyll doubted the ability of his
small numbers to hold the Forth river-front, especially as frost threatened
to make the fords passable. On November 12 he marched from Stirling
and encamped before Dunblane, his right resting on Sheriffmuir. His
army numbered eight battalions of foot and five regiments of horse,
in all about 3000, with six three-pounders. Before sunrise on the 13th
Mar advanced from Kinbuck. Argyll's position, sloping from his right
on Sheriffmuir towards Dunblane, drew the Highlanders' attack on his
left centre. Mar's horse bungled in taking their position, and further
weakened the force opposed to Argyll's right. At the first onrush the
Highlanders drove back Argyll's left upon Dunblane, while the Duke,
commanding in person on his right, scattered and pursued the force
opposed to him to beyond Kinbuck. Those of Mar's army who had
neither joined in the pursuit to Dunblane nor had been scattered by
Argyll's right drew up on the hill of Kippendavie and confronted Argyll
upon his return. But neither side ventured to renew the attack, and
towards evening both withdrew, Argyll to Dunblane, Mar towards Perth.
Mar's timidity in refusing to engage Argyll's right, wearied by pursuit,
left the battle indecisive. As it was, Argyll lost about one-fifth of his
army killed, woimded, or captured.
Almost simultaneously with Sheriffmuir, two disasters elsewhere
rendered James' cause hopeless even before he embarked for Scotland.
Seaforth had left a garrison in Inverness, after driving off Sutherland's
force of Mackays, Rosses, and Munroes. On November 5 Simon Fraser
of Beaufort, intent upon securing the Government's favour and the
1715] Forster's surrender at Preston. 101
Lovat title, arrived in the north. Except those of his name who had
marched to Perth — ^who also deserted Mar (November 10) upon news of
Beaufort's arrival — the clan rallied to him. At the head of a force
of Frasers, Forbeses, and Rosses he drove the Jacobite garrison from
Inverness on November 10, after heading oflF Macdonald of Keppoch,
who was marching ostensibly to its relief. Sutherland joined Beaufort
a few days later (November 15), and the control of the north passed
conclusively to the Government.
In England the prospects of a Jacobite rising were extinguished by
Forster's surrender at Preston on November 14. On October 22, at
Kelso, the Galloway Jacobites under Kenmure, Nithsdale, Camwath and
Wintoun had joined Mackintosh of Borlum and the Northumberland
contingent under Thomas Forster, Derwentwater, and Widdrington.
Their combined force, ten troops of horse and six regiments of foot,
numbered less than 2000 men. The Scots urged a junction with the
clans in Strathfillan and an attack upon Argyll's rear while Mar assailed
his front. The English desired to encourage the Jacobites of Lancashire
by marching thither. The appearance of Lieutenant-General George
Carpenter and three regiments of horse at Wooler (October 27) forced
the insurgents to a resolution, and in spite of protests, desertions, and
even mutiny on the part of the Highland foot, the march into
Lancashire was agreed to (October 29) and began forthwith. Advancing
through Jedbiu-gh, Hawick and Langholm, the force crossed the Esk
(November 1) and entered England. Forster, whose Protestantism was
his only recommendation to a place of prominence, assumed the chief
command under Mar's commission. On his advance to Penrith on the
2nd, the insurgents scattered a force of militia without striking a blow,
and, after a day's halt at Appleby, entered Eendal on the 5th. In
Lancashire the Jacobite gentry showed a disposition to join them ; and
at Lancaster, where they continued from the 7th to the 9th, they captured
six cannon. Encouraged by assurances of a welcome in Manchester,
Forster pushed on his cavalry to Preston on the 9th, and his foot
entered the town on the following day. On the 11th Major-General
Wills reached Wigan from Manchester with six regiments of horse and
the Cameronian foot. Forster took no measures to impede his advance.
Upon his arrival at the Ribble, about midday on the 12th, Wills found
the bridge giving access to Preston unguarded. Within the town the
insurgents had erected four barricades. Wills ordered an immediate
assault ; it was stubbornly met and at nightfall was abandoned. Next
morning (November 13) Carpenter came up with three regiments of
horse. The insurgents were trapped; resistance, however prolonged,
could not avert ultimate smrender ; to break cover with nine regiments
of horse in pursuit would be madness, and Forster acted sensibly in
proposing surrender. Terms were refused ; and early on the 14th the
insurgents, 1500 in number, laid down their arms.
102 James in Scotland. [ivis-e
Six weeks after SherifFmuir, the loss of Inverness, and the Preston
surrender, James arrived in Scotland to head a beaten cause. Other
discouragements had failed to deter his coming. France had not been
stirred to more active sympathy, and Berwick (November 3) decisively
refused to serve James as Captain-General. Ormond, who on October 24
left Paris to raise the south and west of England, found his plans
betrayed, and the persons and places he designed to employ arrested or
alert. Before November 8 he returned to St Malo. On November 27
he again sailed for Cornwall, but returned by December 12 without
having effected anything. Meanwhile James, chafing at inaction, had
set out from Lorraine for the coast. He reached St Malo on November 8,
and designed to sail thence to Dunstaffnage. But, the wind remaining
contrary, he set out on December 2 overland to Dunkirk, to take ship
for the east coast of Scotland. Three weeks later (December 27 or 28)
he sailed; on January 2, 1716 (December 22, 1715, O.S.) he landed at
Peterhead.
Since Sheriffmuir Mar's position at Perth had steadily deteriorated.
Eeppoch brought his clan ; but the Highlanders deserted in large num-
bers, and Seaforth, who returned to the north after the battle, made his
submission to Sutherland. On January 9, 1716, James made a public
entrance into Perth. His arrival did not improve the situation, though
he appointed January 23 for his coronation. Huntly, who left Perth
before James' arrival, and Seaforth, who again took arms, were unable
to restore the position in the north. On the other hand Argyll was
incomparably stronger: he had recovered Burntisland (December 19,
1715) and other Fifeshire ports: reinforcements, including the Dutch
contingent, joined him ; and, soon after James' arrival, he was at the
head of 9000 horse and foot and a powerful artillery train. His failure
to push the campaign to a conclusion had roused suspicion ; and, upon
emphatic instructions from Townshend (January 10, 1716), he began his
advance in a season exceptionally severe. On January 24 he reconnoitred
towards Auchterarder. Undecided whether to retreat or give battle,
Mar took futile measures to hinder Argyll's advance. On the 25th the
clans burnt Auchterarder and Blackford ; by the 29th Crieff, Dunning,
Muthill, and Dalreoch had been dealt with similarly. On the 29th
Argyll advanced in force from Stirling, along roads cleared of snow in
advance, and on the 30th halted at Auchterarder. Within Perth all was
confusion. The Highlanders were impatient for battle ; the cautious
proposed to withdraw to more advantageous ground ; Mar himself was
bent upon abandoning a hopeless enterprise. On the 30th it was
resolved to retreat, and early on the 31 st the army withdrew towards
Montrose. Argyll hotly pressed the pursuit. On February 4 his vanguard
was at Arbroath. James was at Montrose on the same day. He had
written (February 3) to the French Regent to beg for succours, and to
assure him of the vitality of his cause. But an alarm of Argyll's
1716-9] Punitive measures. 103
advance from Arbroath compelled James to consider his safety. A ship,
named the Forerunner, was in Montrose harbour. On the 4th James
went on board, accompanied by Mar, leaving General Alexander Gordon
of Auchintoul to command the retreating army, eind a farewell letter
to his adherents representing his departure as necessary to promote
"a more happy juncture for oiu- mutual delivery." On February 21
(February 10, O.S.) James landed at Gravelines. Scotland he never
saw again. Gordon led his troops to Aberdeen, thence to Badenoch, and
from Ruthven on February 15 petitioned Argyll for clemency. By July
the leaders had made their escape to France.
Severe punishment was dealt out to those who had placed the Union
and the Hanoverian Succession in jeopardy. On March 6, 1716, an Act
empowered the withdrawal of persons in custody for High Treason
(committed before the previous January 23) from the shire in which
the crime had occurred for trial before special Commissions of Oyer
and Terminer. Of those made prisoners in England, 738 were trans-
ported ; 53 died in prison ; 57 (including Derwentwater and Kenmure)
were executed. Derwentwater, Widdrington, Nithsdale, Carnwath,
Kenmure, Nairne, Wintoun, Forster, Mackintosh of Borlum, Mar,
Tullibardine, Linlithgow, Drummond, Marischal, Seaforth, Southesk, and
Panmure were attainted. The policy of a later date was adumbrated in
an Act (June 26, 1716) which forbade the inhabitants (except peers and
commoners qualified to exercise the parliamentary franchise) of all counties
north of the Forth and Clyde estuaries (except Fife, Clackmannan and
Kinross) to carry arms on or after November 1, 1716, and empowered the
Lords Lieutenant to appoint centres for the surrender of arms, and to
pay the full value of their forfeited weapons to those who had remained
loyal in the late rebellion. The Act also directed that after August 1,
1717, the claim of a superior upon his tenants for " hosting, hunting,
watching, and warding" should be commuted in money. But in this,
and in the attempt to disarm them, the Act had little effect upon the
clans most deeply tinged with Jacobitism. The rebellion had revealed
another menace to the established Government, While Mar was at
Perth, in his rear episcopacy frankly avowed itself Jacobite. Over 200
loyal clergy, according to Wodrow, had been ousted from their pulpits.
Their places were taken by episcopal nonjurors, who as a body, while
accepting the liberty conferred by the Toleration Act of 1712, had been
careless to fulfil the conditions upon which it was granted. Episcopacy
paid the penalty for the manifestation of its political bias. By an Act
of 1719 (5 Geo. I, cap. 29) nonjuring ministers were forbidden to
conduct public worship where more than eight persons, not being
members of a single household, were present.
I'or a generation after the '15 the Union was not seriously assailed,
Jacobitism never again rallied the forces which Mar controlled so in-
eificiently. As the material benefits of the Union were recognised, the
104 Sweden, Spain, and the Jacobites. [i7i6-9
Lowlands were tempted to break away from the separatists; and the
Stewart cause found support chiefly among the dans, who correctly
interpreted the Act of 1716 as the beginning of a determined attack
upon their distinctive polity. Jacobitism was further weakened by the
cessation of intimate relations with France. James, excluded from France
and Lorraine, arrived at Avignon on April 2, 1716. Driven thence
(February 6, 1717) by the Triple Alliance, he crossed the Alps to Italy,
and accepted a hospitality which identified his cause with the Papacy
and confirmed the conviction that his restoration would endanger the
Protestant settlement.
Yet the European situation produced two crises of which with
indiflferent success Jacobitism sought to take advantage. Sweden, as
shown in the previous chapter, viewed the Triple Alliance (January,
1717) as a formidable obstacle to her recovery of Bremen and Verden.
Jacobite intrigues with Charles XII, abortive in 1715, were accordingly
renewed in 1716 through Gortz. The scheme contemplated coincident
insurrections in England and Scotland. Baron Sparre, Swedish Minister
in Paris, was in communication with James ; and Count GyUenborg,
representing Sweden at the Court of St James', was in touch with the
English Jacobites, who subscribed over d£'30,000. Stanhope got wind
of the intrigue, and on January 29, 1717, exposed it to the Privy
Council. GyUenborg was arrested ; his papers were impounded ; and
Gortz was seized in Holland at the request of Great Britain. Both
were released soon after, and the sole result of the plot was the
prohibition of commerce with Sweden (February 28, 1717), and the
postponement to the end of the parliamentary session of an Act of
Pardon (July 15, 1717) covering the recent crisis.
France being now allied with Great Britain, and aU hope of Sweden's
help having been dashed by the death of Charles XII (November 30, 1718),
every direction whence Jacobitism could draw support seemed closed.
Opportunely Alberoni offered the resources of Spain. Resolved to free
Italy from the Imperial yoke which the IVeaty of Utrecht had laid upon
her, Alberoni viewed Great Britain, doubly pledged to enforce that
treaty by the Triple Alliance and the Treaty of Westminster (May,
1716) and withal a maritime Power, as the most serious obstacle in his
path. After Byng's destruction of the Spanish fleet off Cape Passaro
on August 11, 1718, the Cardinal — he owed his hat (July 12, 1717) to
James' interest at Rome — turned to the Jacobites to avenge frustrated
projects. In November, 1718, the Duke of Ormond was summoned
from Paris to Spain. Alberoni undertook to send him to England with
4000 foot, 1000 horse, besides artillery, and with two months' pay for the
force. He agreed also to equip a small expedition for Scotland, and
Ormond invited (December 8) the Earl Marischal from Paris to take charge
of it. Of these motions in his behalf James received information on
January 26, 1719, with an intimation that Alberoni deemed it advisable
1719] Alberoni's Armada. 105
for him either to accompany or to follow the English expedition. A fort-
night later (February 8) James left Rome, embarked at Nettuno, and on
March 9 landed at Rosas in Catalonia, whence he proceeded to Madrid.
Meanwhile, after a month's delay, the Spanish fleet, consisting of five
men-of-war and twenty-two transports with 5000 men on board, sailed
from Cadiz (March 7). Ormond since February 24 had been waiting to
join it at Corunna. But it met the fate of an earlier Armada. On
March 29, when about fifty leagues west of Cape Finisterre, a violent
storm scattered the vessels to such sheltering ports as they could reach.
In August, finding that Philip V would make no further effort in his
behalf, James sailed to Italy and his marriage (September 1, 1719) with
Maria Clementina, grand-daughter of John Sobieski, the warrior-king of
Poland.
Once more Scotland was invited single-handed to uphold the Stewart
cause. On March 8, 1719, the Earl Marischal sailed from Pasajes with
two frigates bearing arms, money, 288 rank and file and 19 officers of
Don Pedro de Castro's regiment of foot. The Earl's brother, the future
Marshal Keith in the Prussian service, had already (February 19, 1719) set
out from Madrid to engage the Jacobite exiles in France. With Seaforth,
Tullibardine, and Colin Campbell of Glendaruel, he sailed from Havre
on March 19. By March 24 (April 4, N.S.) they reached the Lewis,
and a week later (March 30) joined Marischal's frigates at Stomoway.
The two parties differed regarding the course to pursue. Marischal
advocated the immediate seizure of Inverness ; Tullibardine thought it
folly to take action until Ormond's landing in England was announced.
The decision rested with Tullibardine, who exhibited a commission
as commander-in-chief from James. Marischal, however, refused to
part with the control of the Spanish frigates. On April 4 the three
vessels sailed to- Gairloch, Upon a rumour that Ormond was in England,
Glendaruel was despatched to rouse the clans. On the 13th the ships
anchored off Ellandonan, a rocky island, crowned by the castle of the
Mackenzies of Kintail, at the forking of Loch Alsh into Lochs Long and
Duich. Arms and ammunition were landed and the Spaniards formed
a camp. The rumour of Ormond's landing had not been confirmed;
without that assurance the Lowland Jacobites woxild not rise ; Glendaruel
returned with a similar message from the clans. By the 20th Clanranald,
Lochiel, Mackinnon, and Citisholm of Strathglass arrived, and a council
of war was held. The majority favoured Fabian tactics. Marischal,
who still urged an immediate stroke against Inverness, suspected that
Tullibardine intended to reiembark, and despatched the two frigates to
Spain on the 30th. On May 4 news of the dispersal of Ormond's fleet
arrived, and five days later three British men-of-war entered Loch Alsh.
On the 10th they compelled the surrender of Ellandonan, its garrison,
arms, and ammunition. There was no course open to Tullibardine save
to withdraw. On the 13th he skirted Loch Long towards Glen Elchaig,
106 Glenshiel. — The malt tax. [1719-28
and thence marched to the Croe at the head of Loch Duich. Inaccurate
news arrived, that the Spanish fleet was repaired and on the point of
sailing. TulUbardine thereupon (May 21) sent an urgent summons to
the clans. With about 1100 men — Mackenzies, Camerons, Macgregors,
Mackinnons, and the Spaniards^^-Tullibardine on June 9 took position
in the Pass of Glenshiel, whither Major-General Wightman with 986
foot (including 136 Munro Highlanders), 120 horse and 4 cohoms, was
advancing from Fort Augustus. On the 10th he appeared, shelled the
insurgents' position, and after a stubborn resistance put them to flight.
On the following day the Spaniards surrendered, and the rising . was at
an end.
One by one every ally of Jacobitism had been detached. France and
the Channel had been secured by the Triple Alliance. The Quadruple
Alliance secured Austria. The Treaty of Stockholm (November 20,
1719) gained Sweden's support for the Hanoverian dynasty and closed the
Baltic. Finally, Spain's adhesion to the Quadruple Alliance (January 26,
1720) closed the Mediterranean to Jacobite enterprise and relegated
James to Italy and isolation. His domestic troubles, and the small
repute of those who controlled his aflairs after Mar's supersession in
1724, filled his Scottish partisans with dismay. George II's accession
passed unchallenged, and Lockhart of Camwath in 1728 regarded
James' cause as one which " must in process of time be totally forgot."
None could discern in the youthful Prince Charles Edward (bom
December 31, 1720) the champion who was to resuscitate it.
In 1719, Jacobitism was dormant; but the unpopularity of the Union
was not encouraged to diminish. The Peerage BiU could be regarded as
a violation of the Union inasmuch as it substituted twenty -five hereditary
for the sixteen representative peers elected by their order. In the Lords,
where the measure passed (November 80, 1719), the" Scottish peers
welcomed a proposal to convert their elective into a hereditary status,
and, on broader grounds, supported it as freeing them from the influence
of English political parties. In the Commons the Bill was lost
(December 8, 1719) by 269 to 177 votes. Vastly more unpopular was
a proposal in the Commons (December 10, 1724) aflecting Scottish beer
and ale. The resolution of 1713 to impose a duty on Scottish malt had
never been acted upon. In order to balance the immunity which Scot-
land had enjoyed, it was now proposed to levy an additional excise of
sixpence per barrel on Scottish beer and ale, and to withhold from
Scotland the bounty that England enjoyed on the export of grain.
Considerable clamour was raised against a proposal which was declared
to violate the Union's promise of fiscal uniformity, and a threepenny
duty on malt, being half of the English duty, was substituted. In its
new form the impost was not less unpopular. An inaccurate statement
was put abroad, that the Convention of Royal Burghs encouraged non-
payment of the duty ; and, on June 24, 1725, Captain Bushell and two
1724-39] The Disarming Act. 107
companies of infantry were drafted, into Glasgow to support the excise
officials in valuing the maltsters' stock. They were received with shouts
of " No malt tax " ; the Guard-house was locked against them ; and the
mob gutted the house of their Member of Parliament, Daniel Campbell.
On the 25th, encouraged by the inactivity of the soldiery, the rioters
stoned them and drew a volley. Bushell thereupon sought safety in
Dumbarton Castle, and informed General Wade at Edinburgh of his
predicament. On July 10 the General, with the Lord Advocate (Duncan
Forbes of Culloden) and a considerable force of horse and foot, entered
Glasgowj Four men and one woman implicated in the riot were sentenced,
the former to whipping and transportation, the woman to the piUory.
Glasgow was fined =^6080 to make good Campbell's losses. The Duke
of Roxburghe, suspected of sympathy with the demonstrators, was
removed from the Scottish Secretaryship (August, 1725).
While the Lowlands were in a ferment, measures were being taken
to settle the Highlands. Wade reported (December 10, 1724i) that the
Disarming Act of 1716 had failed in efifect. The loyal clans, numbered
at 10,000 men, had more or less obeyed the injunction to disarm ; the
disloyal, 12,000 in number, as Wade estimated, had surrendered old and
useless arms, their effective weapons remaining hidden and within reach.
Wade therefore recommended (April, 1725) that the disarming of the
clans should be prosecuted vigorously, that six Highland companies
should be raised, an armed barque launched upon Loch Ness, and forts
and barracks provided at Inverness (Fort George) and Cillachiumein
(Fort Augustus). On May 31, 1725, a new Disarming Act received the
royal assent. The surrender of arms in the shires scheduled in the Act
of 1716 was ordered under the penalty of forcible enlistment for military
service in the colonies ; women concealing arms were liable to two years'
imprisonment and a fine not exceeding =£"100; peers, their sons, and
commoners qualified to vote for or sit as Members of Parliament, were
exempt from the Act. The disarmament of the disaflfected clans was
imdertaken systematically by Wade, but, as the future proved, not
effectually. Fort George and Fort Augustus were built, and from
Inverness to Fort William, and from Stirling to Inverness, military
roads were constructed. The Highland Watch, or police, had been
disbanded after the '15. Six companies were now raised, and in 1739
were embodied as a regiment of the Line, the 42nd (Black Watch). It
was the good fortune of England to enlist the commercial ambition of
the Lowlands and the military aptitude of the Highlands in behalf of
an Empire which both had entered reluctantly.
At the moment when Parliament was considering the pacification of
the Highlands, the trustees of the estates forfeited after the '16 pre-
sented their final report. By an Act of June 26, 1716, a Commission
had been constituted to ascertain the extent and value of the property
of persons who had been attainted since June 29, 1715 ; and a further
108 Forfeited estates. — The Porteous mob. [1718-37
Act (March 21, 1718) vested the forfeited estates in trustees, to
be sold to Protestant purchasers for the public use and to provide a
capital sum not exceeding ^£"20,000 for the erection of schools in th6
Highlands. The operations of the trustees terminated on June 26, 1724;
and on April 17, 1725, their final report was presented to Parliament.
Of thirty-nine Scottish estates vested in them they had sold thirty-four,
and had paid over to the Receiver-General £295,926. 14y. Qd., debited
to the extent of <£234<,517. 13*. Id. due to creditors of the estates,
and leaving a meagre balance of d&61,409. 1*. 2d. which was further
diminished by the expenses of the trust and by grants to the widows
and relatives of forfeited proprietors. Only ^^27,616. 10«. had been
remitted to the Treasury; and the unsold estates were entrusted
(13 Geo. I, cap. 28) to the Scottish Court of Exchequer to be sold
and applied according to the directions of the Act of 1718.
Scott has immortalised an event of 1736— a year otherwise memor-
able in the history of the Scottish Establishment for the publication
of their Judicial Testimony by Ebenezer Erskine and his associates,
the beginning of a movement which developed leisurely towards Volun-
taryism. On April 14, 1736, Andrew Wilson, a smuggler, was hanged
at Edinburgh for robbing the Customs. His case roused sympathy;
his sentence was excessive in relation to an offence which the general
community held venial, if not praiseworthy; and at their public
churching before the execution Wilson had aided the escape of his
confederate in the crime. An attempt to rescue him at the gallows was
anticipated, and precautions were taken. Seventy of the City Guard,
under Captain John Porteous, were on duty round the scaffold; a detach-
ment of the 23rd foot was stationed close by. The execution was not
interrupted ; but, after it, the mob stoned the guards and cut down Wilson's
body. The guards replied with promiscuous shooting ; six persons were
killed and about twenty were wounded. Public indignation was intense;
and, three months later (July 5), Porteous was arraigned on a charge
of murder. Conflicting evidence was offered, both as to his having fired
upon the crowd himself, and as to his having ordered his men to fire.
He was found guilty, however, and his execution was appointed for the
following September 8. Porteous petitioned the Queen, in the King's
absence, and obtained a respite till October 20. It was suspected that
respite was preliminary to pardon ; and on the eve of the day originally
appointed for his execution Porteous was dragged from the Tolbooth by
a mob and was hanged on a dyer's pole in the Grass-market. The
outrage roused lengthy debates in the Lords, who on May 13, 1737,
passed a Bill to imprison and incapacitate the Provost of Edinburgh
from municipal office, to remove the gates from the Nether Bow of the
city, and to disband the City Guard. In the Commons the Bill was
severely criticised and barely survived. In the form in which it received
the royal assent (June 21, 1737), it imposed upon Edinburgh a fine of
i73'7-43] France and Jacobite intrigue. 109
^2000 in behalf of Porteous' widow (who accepted i?1500 in full
payment), and disabled the Provost from holding magisterial office.
Scottish nationalism was roused by the measure; the Church was
inflamed by a supplementary and futile Act (June 21, 1737), ordering
the clergy on the first Sunday of each month for one year to summon
the persons implicated in Porteous' death to surrender themselves.
When Walpole declared war upon Spain (October 19, 1739), and
the death of the Emperor Charles VI, a year later, opened a wider
warfare, the common interests of France and Great Britain had isolated
the Pretender in Italy for more than twenty years. But the crisis
created by the Emperor's death caused France and Great Britain to
drift apart; while the fall of Walpole (February 2, 1742) and the
death of Cardinal Fleury (January 29, 1743) surrendered both countries
to warlike influences. So soon as war with Spain seemed imminent,
and Walpole's position precarious, Jacobite intrigues were set on foot.
Francis Sempill, the son of an oflicer in the French service and resident
in Paris, and William Macgregor (or Drummond) of Balhaldie, were
employed to solicit France. From July, 1739, when the storm clouds
were lowering, Sempill acted as the secret channel of communication
between James at Rome and the cautious Fleury. Balhaldie visited the
latter in the spring of 1740 and returned to Scotland with vague and
verbal promises. To watch the situation, an " Association " was formed,
whose members were Lovat (angling for a dukedom), Lochiel, the Earl
of Traquair, his brother John Stewart, Lord John Drummond, Sir James
Campbell of Auchinbreck, and the titular Dulce of Perth. Balhaldie
again visited France with a signed assurance (March 13, 1741) of their
readiness to resort to arms, and with a list of Scottish partisans whose
names, according to John Murray of Broughton (acting since about
August, 1740, as James' correspondent in Scotland), he used with
uncommon freedom. Though Balhaldie asserted a French expedition
to be imminent, Fleury was cautious and undecided. In December,
1742, Balhaldie announced a French descent for the following spring,
and the Associators were directed to have everything in readiness.
But France was not yet in earnest; and the intrigue lapsed with
Fleury's death. The Cardinal had confided to Amelot, the Foreign
Minister, that he was in communication with James. To Amelot,
therefore, Sempill and Balhaldie turned.
Amelot satisfied himself that the Scottish Jacobites were ready to
take arms. They on their part were sceptical as to Balhaldie's repre-
sentation of France's attitude. In February, 1743, Murray of Broughton
went over to Paris, where he received from Amelot only a vague assurance
of Louis' support " as soon as the situation of his affairs would permit."
Circumstances hastened that eventuality. Breaking his neutrality,
George II placed himself at the head of a Pragmatic Army in the
Netherlands, and fought the French at Dettingen (June 27, 1743).
110 Maurice de Saaee's expeditionary force. [1743-4
Amelot thereupon awaited only an assurance of the party's vitality
in England to commit himself, and sent over an agent to make en-
quiries. Taken in hand by Balhaldie and others whose object was to
bluster France into action, Amelot's agent returned in October, 1743,
with eulogistic reports of the strength of English Jacobitism. Amelot
hesitated no longer. On November 13, 1743, he told Sempill that
France was prepared to strike for James' restoration. Louis informed
Philip of Spain to that effect on December 10, 1743 ; and, a week later
(December 17), Balhaldie reached Rome with the news. James' cor-
respondence (December 4, 1743) proves that he already discerned an
opportunity for sending his elder son from Italy. With the connivance of
Cardinal Aquaviva, Spanish Protector at the Vatican, and of de Tencin,
representative there of the Knights of Malta, Charles left Rome secretly
on January 9, 1744, landed at Antibes on the 23rd, and reached Paris
by February 10. He carried a commission (December 23, 1743) to act
as Regent in his father's behalf. The Prince's presence in France was
likely to be, and actually proved, embarrassing. Amelot declared Charles'
departure from Rome to have taken place without the knowledge or
connivance of France. The Vatican likewise remained uninvolved.
James, in fact, was anxious to have some personal share in any attempt
on his behalf, but chiefly to seize the opportunity for affording Charles
the chance of the action for which he longed and the experience which
he needed.
On November 15, 1743, orders were given to prepare transports
to convey the French expeditionary force. Early in December they
concentrated at Dunkirk, 38 in number, to embark Maurice de Saxe
and a force numbering 9274 infantry, 622 dragoons, 133 gunners,
and six twelve-pounders. A fleet of 22 sail of the line under Count
de Roquefeuil assembled at Brest. It was intended to launch the
expedition early in January, 1744 ; but the English Jacobites advised
the postponement of the attempt until February, by which time the
members of the party in Parliament could withdraw to the provinces.
The arrival of Charles in France made it necessary to strike before
the British Ministry could avert a danger whose proportions were now
revealed. On February 2 Saxe was instructed, on the arrival of an
escorting convoy under Admiral de Barailh, to land in the Thames and
occupy London. Roquefeuil set sail from Brest on the 6th, to clear
the Channel. Barailh parted company with him off the Isle of Wight
on the 28th, and reached Dunkirk by March 8. Meanwhile Admiral
Norris and a powerful fleet appeared in the Downs ; and the news from
England suggested that Balhaldie and Sempill had exaggerated every-
thing except the number of troops available to oppose a landing. On
March 6, Argenson instructed Saxe that the expedition was indefinitely
postponed, and the equinoctial gales enabled the French Government to
retire plausibly from an enterprise already regretted. A violent tempest
1744-5] Charles sails to Scotland. Ill
on the night of March 6-7 drove on shore eleven transports and
damaged others. A second storm, on the 11th, inflicted further losses.
On the same day Saxe was informed that the enterprise was abandoned.
Jacobitism looked vainly to France until the clans under Prince Charles
had proved the vitality of the Stewart cause.
Meanwhile Charles remained in France. Louis rejected Great Bri-
tain's demand for his expulsion ; but the Prince received neither official
courtesies nor the hospitality of Versailles. In September, 174!4!, Murray
of Broughton visited him in Paris. He found him full of exaggerated
ideas of the latent loyalty which would spring into life if he appeared
among his father's subjects, and longing to be himself in action. If, as he
had declared to Sempill (March 15, 1744), he withdrew without achieving
something, his party would hold him inheritor of the ill-fortune of his
father and grandfather, and would forsake a cause persistently unfortunate.
He therefore informed Murray that, even though he were unattended,
he would come to Scotland in the summer of 1745. Murray thereupon
returned to Edinburgh, and founded the " Buck Club " to organise the
party. Excepting the Duke of Perth, all concurred as to the rashness of
the Prince's resolve. Early in 1745, a representation to that effect was
entrusted to Traquair for Charles; though Lochiel, Glengarry, Clan-
ranald, Keppoch, Glencoe, Stewart of Ardshiel, and other members of
the Club declared their readiness in any circumstances to give proof
of their loyalty. Traquair's despatch never reached the Prince, nor did
Young Glengarry with a later message. Charles would certainly have
been deterred by neither. The news of the battle of Fontenoy (May 11,
1745) conveyed to him an absurdly ill-informed impression of the pre-
carious footing of his Hanoverian rival ; and he forthwith despatched
Sir Hector Maclean of Duart to Scotland to announce his imminent
arrival. On such haphazard foundations was raised the last Jacobite
effort. With Charles chiefly rests the blame for its rashness.
For months Charles had been preparing for his enterprise. He had
procured nearly »6'4000, arms, and ammunition. Anthony Walsh, a
Nantes shipowner, lent him the frigate Du TeiUay, 18 guns. Walter
Rutledge, an Irish merchant in Dunkirk, provided her escort, the war
frigate Elizabeth, 60 guns. James was ignorant of Charles' project:
the Prince's letter (June 12, 1745) announcing it was intentionally not
despatched to Rome until Charles was on his way to Scotland. On
July 2, Charles embarked on the Du Teillay at Bonne Anse, at the
mouth of the Loire. He was accompanied by TuUibardine (titular Duke
of AthoU), Sir John Macdonald (an officer in the French service), ^neas
Macdonald (a Paris banker), Francis Strickland, who had been Charles'
companion on his Italian tour eight years before. Colonel O'Sulivan,
his former Governor (Sir Thomas Sheridan), and George Kelly — ^the
"Seven Men of Moidart." On July 18, in the roads of Belle Isle,
the Du TeiUay was joined by the Elizabeth. The two vessels set sail
112 Glenfinnan. [1745
for Scotland on the 15th. On the 20th, before rounding Land's End,
the Elizabeth was engaged by H.M.S. IJon, and returned to Brest in
a shattered condition. The Du Teillay proceeded alone, and on July 23
(August 3, N. S.), at Eriska in the Outer Hebrides, Charles first trod
Scottish soil. On July 25 the Du Teillay crossed to the mainland and
anchored in Loch-na-Nuagh. In spite of Charles' meagre following,
Lochiel, Keppoch, Glencoe, Clanranald, Glengarry, and Stewart of Aiid-
shiel agreed to bring out their clans. Like Marischal in 1719, Charles
resolved to force a campaign by sacrificing the means of retreat. On
August 8 the Du Teillay weighed anchor for France, bearing an appeal
to Louis XV for assistance. Ten days later (August 19) Charles raised
the standard in Glenfinnan at the head of Loch Shiel, and by the 27th
commanded a little over 2000 men, of whom more than half were
Macdonalds.
Meanwhile, the Government had proclaimed (August 1) a reward
of i&30,000 for Charles' capture ; and Sir John Cope, commanding in
Scotland, prepared to act vigorously with the unpromising material at
his disposal. The military establishment in Scotland consisted of three-
and-a-half battalions of infantry and two regiments of horse : all, save
one regiment of foot (Guise's, the 6th), being either newly raised or
inexperienced in active warfare. Leaving Gardiner's horse (13th Hussars)
at Stirling and Hamilton's (14th Hussars) at Leith, Cope advanced from
Stirling with twenty-five companies of foot (August 20). His objective
was Fort Augustus; but, finding the clans in position to contest the
Pass of Corryarrack, he changed his route and pushed on to Inverness
(August 29). The south lay open to Charles, and thither he marched.
On September 4 he entered Perth, and was joined by the Duke of Perth
(Lord James Drummond) with 200 of his clan, and a contingent of
Robertsons and Macgregors. More important was the accession of Lord
George Murray, a man of military ability to whom, with Perth, Charles
committed the command of his army. Lord George had taken part in the
'15 and '19; but his recent relations with the Government, the sanity of
his judgment, and his refusal to countenance enterprises patently futile,
gained him the suspicion of Charles and of the Irish dare-alls whom
Charles chiefly trusted. His inability to subordinate his judgment to
the Prince's inexperience drew upon him, when the adventure was ended,
ungenerous accusations of treachery. On September 11 the southward
march was resumed, a proposal to meet Cope, hurrying to Aberdeen and
his transports, having been wisely rejected. The Forth, so obstinately
held by Aigyll in 1715, was crossed at Frew without opposition on the
13th, Gardiner's regiment falling back on Falkirk and Coltbridge, where
Hamilton's joined it. On the 16th Charles halted at Gray's Mill, two
miles from Edinburgh, and summoned the city. The Provost, Archi-
bald Stewart, was irresolute; the volunteers who had been enrolled
disbanded in the crisis of danger ; the dragoons again turned tail— ^
1745] Prestonpans. 113
the "canter o' Colt-Brig." Cope's arrival from Aberdeen was imminent;
the Provost therefore manoeuvred for time. But in the small hours of
the 17th the Camerons rushed the Nether Bow, and seized the guard-
house and the gates. At noon Charles entered the city. James VIII
was proclaimed forthwith, and Holyrood, after more than sixty years,
again housed a royal Stewart.
Striking as was Charles' occupation of Edinburgh, his march through
the Lowlands revealed how firm a hold the Union had secured. The
squadrons which the Lowland gentry provided in 1715 were represented
now by a single troop of 36 horse, the "Perthshire squadron." The
Highland infantry still numbered few more than 2000, many of whom
carried guns of dangerous antiquity, Lochaber axes, pitchforks, and
scythe-blades mounted on poles. Edinburgh was requisitioned for arms,
ammunition, tents, and shoes for naked feet. On September 18 Lord
Naime, with 700 AthoU and 300 of Menzies of Shian's men, joined
Charles. The reinforcement was opportune; for, on the 17th, Cope
disembarked at Dunbar and, on the 19th, advancing towards Edinburgh,
encamped westward of Haddington. Charles, on the 20th, led his army
from Duddingston. He expected to engage near Musselburgh; but,
learning that Cope was at Tranent, he ascended Carberry Hill, associated
now for a third time with the fortunes of the Stewarts. Cope, a little
over 2000 strong, lay on the sea-ward plain below, a broad ditch
intervening. The night passed, with the two armies half-a-mile apart.
Before sunrise on the 21st, the Highlanders descended and hurled them-
selves on Cope's left flank, almost before he had time to re-form. In
fifteen minutes the battle was over : six guns and Cope's military chest
were the prize of the victors.
For a month after his victory Charles remained inactive at Edinburgh.
The protest against the Union in his father's proclamation had roused
little response. But Charles, like his father, viewed Scotland as the
stepping-stone to an English restoration, and France was relied on as
accessory. On August 11, 1745, James wrote to Louis XV to place his
younger son Henry at the disposal of France. A fortnight later Henry
(August 29) left Rome for France. A scheme of Maurepas (October 13)
to convey him with 10,000 French troops to England came to nothing ;
but on October 14 the Marquis d'Eguilles arrived at Edinburgh with
instructions (September 24, 1745) as Louis' secret ambassador to Charles.
Money, arms, and six four-pounders also arrived, and on October 24
Argenson signed the secret Treaty of Fontainebleau, binding Louis to
render Charles assistance. Encouraged by these marks of French interest,
Charles resolved to rouse his English adherents. His proposal to advance
upon Newcastle was strongly opposed by Lord George and others, who
were incredulous of the effect which Charles anticipated from his appear-
ance in England. They objected that, if his adherents there were in
earnest, they ought not to need the encouragement of his presence;
0. M. H. VI. CH. III. 8
114 Charles enters England. [1745
while, if a French landing in England was imminent, as was asserted, it
was sounder strategy to draw off English troops to Scotland. As a com-
promise Lord George proposed an advance into Cumberland, where the
ground was more suitable for the Highlanders, and Charles reluctantly
agreed.
On October 31 Charles marched from Edinburgh upon an enterprise
bravely executed, but as futile in result as Mackintosh's a generation
earlier. Since Cope's defeat, the Prince had received reinforcementis.
Mackinnons, Macphersons, Ogilvies, Gordons, and Grants of Glen-
moriston swelled his infantry; Elcho, Balmerinoch, Pitsligo, Kilmarnock,
and Murray of Broughton commanded five tjoops of horse. Charles
marched to the border with 5000 foot, 500 horse, and 13 guns. On
November 8 he crossed the Esk, his force lessened by about 1000
through desertion. On the 15th, Carlisle and its castle capitulated
after a two days' siege; Wade, who marched from Newcastle on the
16th, got no further than Hexham, the roads being impassable. Cope's
successor, Lieutenant-General Handasyde, had already reached Edin-
burgh (November 14), with two regiments of foot and Hamilton's and
Gardiner's dragoons. In the south. Sir John Ligonier was massing
an army about Lichfield, of which the Duke of Cumberland took com-
mand later (November 27). In these circumstances Charles' council
agreed (November 18) to advance into Lancashire, and rouse the west
of England before Cumberland and Wade could unite. At Preston,
where (November 26) the Prince received his first enthusiastic welcome
in England, the Highlanders were marched across the Ribble to dispel
the sombre memory of that stream as the terminus of earlier invasions
in 1648 and 1715. Manchester (November 29) surpassed Preston in
the vigour of its welcome, and about 200 recruits were formed into the
Manchester Regiment under Francis Townley. Charles was elated : "his
conversation that night at table was, in what manner he should enter
London, on horseback or afoot, and in what dress" — he had marched
from Scotland on foot, and in the Highland habit. His officers did not
share his elation, and retreat was already discussed among them. It was
resolved, however, to march to Derby, so as to avert any complaint that
England had not been encouraged to rise or France to send troops.
Advancing on December 1, Charles' cavalry was speedily in touch with
the outposts of Cumberland, whose army, over 10,000 strong, rested on
Newcastle-under-Lyne, Stafibrd, Lichfield, and Coventry. Wade, who
had set out from Newcastle on November 24, was advancing through
Yorkshire; a third array was forming on Finchley Common. On
December 4 Charles entered Derby. On the next morning. Lord George
and other officers waited upon him with a reasoned refusal to advance
further. Three armies were in the field against them ; they had entered
England to encourage the English to rise, and to support a French
landing ; but the country had not risen, and had given no encouragement
1745-6] The retreat from Derby. — Falkirk. 115
to suppose it would do so, while a French landing seemed equally remote.
Mindful of the disasters which had attended similar endeavours in 1648
and 1716, they refused to force upon England a king whom she had
given no sign of desiring. Charles protested angrily, though it is
patent that a further advance must ultimately have proved futile. On
December 6 the retreat began. Cumberland's cavalry and Wade's horse
under Oglethorpe followed in close pursuit. At Lancaster (December 13)
a proposal to give battle to Cumberland was abandoned; and, after
fighting a rearguard action on the 18th at Clifton, near Penrith, the
whole army on the 20th crossed the Esk into Scotland. Ten days later
(December 30), Cumberland compelled the surrender of the Manchester
regiment which Charles had senselessly left behind in Carlisle, and the
winter campaign ended.
From December 27, 1745, to January 3, 1746, Charles and his army
rested at Glasgow after eight weeks of almost continuous marching.
During his absence the position in Scotland had improved in his favour.
On November 22, 1745, Lord John Drummond had arrived from France
with 700 of the Royal Scots and Irish regiments, and six heavy field-guns.
His arrival put out of action the Dutch auxiliaries, who before their
arrival in England were on parole not to fight against French colours.
In the north. Lord Lewis Gordon had raised a force of 800 Gordons,
Farquharsons, and Moir of Stonywood's men, and at Inverurie repulsed
(December 23) Loudoun's attempt to recover Aberdeenshire. The
Frasers had at length come out, and, after an unsuccessful attempt upon
Fort Augustus (December 3), marched to Perth, where, before the end
of the year, detachments of Mackintoshes and other clans were assembled,
to the number of 2400. Charles had at his disposal a total force of
8000 men and 19 guns.
While Cumberland was in England to confront the threatened
French landing, and Hawley, superseding Handasyde, was bringing up
Wade's command from Newcastle, Charles evacuated Glasgow (January 3,
1746). Stirling surrendered ^ on the 7th, and trenches were opened
(January 16) before the castle. Hawley had already advanced from
Edinburgh and on the 14th was at Linlithgow. Charles proposed to
engage him near Bannockburn ; but, on the 17th, Hawley not advancing,
the clans surprised him at Falkirk, and after an indiscriminate engage-
ment reminiscent of Sheriffmuir, put him to flight with the loss of his
camp and seven guns. Jacobitism had won its last victory. Charles
returned to the siege of Stirling Castle, and, a week later, Cumberland
took over and reinforced Hawley's demoralised army at Edinburgh.
Charles was anxious to meet him and confident of the issue ; but Lord
George and the principal chiefs advised a retreat. They alleged
(January 29) the desertion of a " vast number " since the recent battle,
and urged withdrawal to the Highlands, whence in the spring the clans
would draw together in greater strength. Other motives inspired their
OH. III. 8 — Z
116 Culloden. [i746
communication. Possessed of extraordinary driving power, and making no
demand upon his men that he would not obey himself, Charles inherited
the rashness of his grandfather and the obstinacy of Charles I. To the
Stewart belief in inspired ability he added a masterful self-reliance which
encouraged courtiers and looked askance on advisers. After his dis-
appointment at Derby he declared his intention to act without consulting
his council, and fulfilled his threat till the eve of Culloden. The Scots
also resented the Prince's reliance on his companions from France, who
had little at stake in the country which provided them with adventure,
rather than on the men who gave him the army he commanded. Nor
did the abrupt transition from the dull stagnation of Italy to the keen
activity of high adventure tend to encourage the qualities of tact and
judgment in which he was by nature lacking.
On February 1 the army crossed the Forth in confusion, and with
the sacrifice of heavy guns and ammunition. Charles and the clans
retreated along Wade's road to Inverness ; Lord George with the horse
and the French auxiliaries followed the coast to Aberdeen. The Prince's
immediate object was to dissipate Loudoun's force in the north, reduce
the Government's forts in the Highlands, and secure the coast route
along which Cumberland would probably advance. After an ineffectual
attempt to surprise Charles at Moy Hall (February 16), Loudoun
abandoned Inverness and withdrew into Sutherlandshire. Fort George
surrendered on February 20, and Fort Augustus about March 1, Fort
William oflfered a prolonged resistance, and the siege was raised on April 3.
Since it was important to keep open a route to the Lowlands, Lord
George appeared (March 17) before Blair Castle, into which Cumberland
had put a garrison. Lord Crawford and the Hessians moved to its
relief. Failing to entice them into the Pass of Killiecrankie, Lord
George abandoned his investment of Blair on April 2 and rejoined the
Prince. Meanwhile, Cumberland had been heavily reinforced. On
February 8, 500 Hessian foot arrived at Leith to replace the Dutch.
Settling them at Perth to secure the south against Charles' possible
return by Wade's road, Cumberland advanced along the coast and on
April 11 united his columns at CuUen — 15 battalions of foot, 3 regi-
ments of horse, and Highland auxiliaries, in all 8811 strong. Charles
awaited him at Culloden, with a shrunken force of 6700 foot and 240
horse. A mismanaged attempt to surprise Cumberland at Nairn during
the night of the 16th brought the army back to Culloden tired and
famished. Not more than about 5000 were present in the ranks when
Cumberland a few hours later (April 16) opened the engagement with
his artillery. Some of the clans charged heroically, but in vsiin, against
regiments schooled by the experience of Cope's and Hawley's disasters.
No measures had been concerted for a rendezvous in case of defeat, and
the Prince thought only upon escape. After five months of wandering,
hardship borne heroically, and experience of loyal devotion, the French
1746-1807] Jacobite forfeitures. 117
frigate VHeureux bore him on September 20, 1746, from Loch-na-Nuagb
to France, whence the Treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle (1748) expelled him.
His later disreputable life, and his brother's acceptance of a Cardinal's
hat (July 3, 1747), extinguished Jacobitism as a national force. In
February, 1800, the Cardinal received a pension from George III ; and
George IV contributed to Canova's monument in St Peter's to the joint
memory of James and his two sons, of whom the Cardinal, the younger,
died on July 13, 1807.
The Jacobite assault upon the Union and Protestant settlement
invited severe reprisals. On May 24, 1746, Cumberland established
himself at Fort Augustus; the soldiery swept the glens of the disaffected
clans; the Campbells were let loose upon Appin, Loudoun's Highland
companies upon Badenoch and Lochaber ; those found with arms were
summarily shot ; houses whose inmates had absconded were burnt ; their
cattle were raided. After Cumberland vacated (July 18) his command
the storm of vengeance slackened. Of those indicted at Carlisle, York,
and Southwark for rebellion, 73 paid the death penalty. Kilmarnock,
Balmerinoch, Cromarty (August 1, 1746) and Lovat (March 19, 1747)
were found guilty of treason by their peers, and, excepting Cromarty,
were executed. An Act of Attainder was passed (June 4, 1746) against
Lords Kellie, Strathallan, Pitsligo, and forty others. A year later
(June 17, 1747), the estates of those attainted were forfeited to the
Crown ; their revenues to be applied to " civilising " the Highlands and
Islands. Friction such as that which had arisen with the trustees of the
Act of 1718 was avoided by vesting the administration of the forfeited
properties solely in the Scottish Court of Exchequer. The rental of
the 46 forfeited estates amounted to ^16,285. 17«. Id., the personalty
to i&19,345. 14*. 4id. But creditors advanced claims amounting to
^277,127. 4*. 8d., and on February 28, 1752, the Exchequer reported
that the estates had yielded nothing to the Treasury. The Act, in fact,
was leniently interpreted, and permanently affected few families ; though
the Lovat, Cromarty, Barrisdale, and Lord John Drummond's estates
were annexed to the Crown (March 26, 1752).
The Scottish episcopalians had refrained from overt expressions of
Jacobite sympathy such as had come from them in 1715 : but they
remained non-juring. James' patronage of their hierarchy further
prejudiced them; and many of their meeting-houses had been burnt
during Cumberland's campaign. On August 12, 1746, the royal assent
was given to an Act which empowered the local authorities to close
meeting-houses attended by five or more persons whose minister had
failed to take the oaths by September 1, 1746; disfranchised and
disqualified for a seat in Parliament peers and commoners who had
attended an unlicensed meeting-house more than once within the year
preceding an election ; and condemned unlicensed officiating ministers
to six months' imprisonment for the first, and transportation for life for
OH. Ill,
118 Scottish episcopacy. — HigJdand dress. [i746-92
a second offence. The Scottish episcopate being deeply suspect, ordina-
tions by an English or Irish Bishop were alone recognised. By a later
Act (May 18, 1748) ministers who had been ordained by a Scottish Bishop
and had qualified before September 1, 1746, were expressly debarred (as
from September 29, 1748) from a continuation of their licenses. The
deaths of James (January 1, 1766) and of Charles (January 31, 1788)
enabled episcopacy to purge itself of Jacobitism : but it was not even
partially relieved from the penal laws pressing upon it until the Act of
June 15, 1792.
In dress, tongue, and polity the Highlands stood apart — the " bar-
barous part of the island, hitherto a noxious load upon the whole,"
as a Scotsman described them in 1747. The Union of 1707 represented
a compact between two races whose political institutions, differing in
particulars, were traceable to a common origin. But, if the Union was
to cover both kingdoms, the Highlands needed to be purged of charac-
teristics which made one half of Scotland foreign to the other. A policy
of harmonisation was therefore attempted. The first of the legislative
measures to this end was a Disarming Act (August 12, 1746), that
of 1725 having expired. While reenacting the procedure whereby
to procure surrender of arms, the Act differed from its predecessor in
two particulars. It offered a fine of .^15 sterling alternative to mihtary
service in America for those convicted of bearing arms — a concession
likely to relieve few. The second point of difference concerned all.
Under penalty of imprisonment for six months for the first, and trans-
portation for seven years for a second offence, it was forbidden from
August 1, 1747, to man or boy in Scotland (the King's forces excepted)
to wear " the plaid, philebeg or little kilt, trowse, shoulder-belts, tartan
or party-coloured plaid or stuff for great-coats or for upper coats."
The period of grace proved inadequate and was extended (landowners and
their sons excepted) to August 1, 1748 (20 Geo. II, cap. 51), and eventu-
ally to December 25, 1748, for the plaid and kilt, and to August 1,
1749, for the other proscribed habiliments, under penalty of enforced
enlistment (21 Geo. II, cap. 34).
More deep-reaching in purpose were legislative measures which
removfed survivals of feudalism long since discarded in England, where
jurisdictions dangerously interfering between the Crown and its subjects
had been abolished. In Scotland the provincial administration of justice
in the Lowlands was still the heritable privilege of individuals, and its
exercise a source of emolument. In the Highlands tenure " in waxd "
permitted the chiefs to require the military service of their tenants,
and prevailed in spite of the license granted by the Disarming Act
of 1716 to commute the claim for money. Two Bills were framed
for the abolition of these survivals of medievalism ; and, on June 17,
1747, both received the royal assent. The first abolished (from
March 25, 1748) all heritable offices of justiciary, regalities, baiUieships,
1747-53] Heritable jurisdictions abolished. 119
constabularies (the High Constable of Scotland excepted), sheriffships,
stewartries, and vested them in the Crown. The Courts of Barony
were restricted to jurisdiction in minor charges of assault involving
a maximum penalty of £\ sterling or one month's imprisonment, and
to civil causes where the debt or damages at issue (the recovery of rent
excepted) did not exceed £% sterling. Compensation was offered to the
owners and officials of the forfeited jurisdictions, who were directed to
enter their claims in the Court of Session before November 11, 1747.
Claims were recorded by 161 claimants in respect of 250 heritable or
life jurisdictions and 15 dependent clerkships. Of the former offices
117, and of the latter 9, were allowed and were commuted for
i&152,037. 12*. 2cZ., considerably less than one-third of the total amount
(,j&583,090. 16s. 8d.) demanded. The second Act abolished tenure " in
ward " from March 25, 1748. Tenures " in ward " of the Crown were
converted into tenures " in blanch," and of superiors below the Crown
into tenures " in feu," the amount of the feu-duty or rent being left to
agreement according to a rule to be laid down by the Court of Session.
The legislation of 1747, concluding a long series of enactments " for
rendering the Union of the two Kingdoms more complete," was accom-
panied by an Act of Pardon (June 17, 1747) for offences committed
before June 15, 1747. From its operation exiles who on that date
were in the service of the Pretender, France, or Spain ; estates forfeited
and persons attainted before June 15, 1747 ; and those concerned in
the late rebellion and in the intrigues which (since July 1, 1742) had
prepared the way for it, were excepted. The Macgregor clan and 87
persons were expressly barred. Ample opportunity remained for further
vengeance; but the law claimed only one more victim, Archibald
Cameron, implicated in the hare-brained Elibank Plot, who was executed
on June 7, 1753, under the Attainder of 1746. With the Elibank Plot,
serious only by reason of Frederick the Great's suspected connivance,
Jacobitism as an active force expired. It had failed as an effective
national movement in protest against the Union. It had failed as a
weapon in the hand of European Powers, who, employing it for their
own ends, had the opportunity to impede Great Britain in the attainment
of her own. Freed from the incubus of civil commotion, Scotland
realised the material prosperity which had tempted her adherence to
the Union. England, on her part, benefited not merely by the conversion
of a suspicious neighbom:, but obtained a valuable partner in the
development of Greater Britain, the most signal creation of the century
in which the permanence of Great Britain was for a time in jeopardy.
120
CHAPTER IV.
THE BOURBON GOVERNMENTS IN FRANCE AND SPAIN. I.
(1714-26.)
Absolute to the end as Louis XIV had been, a single day sufficed to
annul the testamentary provisions of the dead hand. The problem of
the Regency during his great-grandson's minority was the main pre-
occupation of the old King's last year. He loved his bastard, the Duke
of Maine, and disliked the character of his nephew, the Duke of Orleans ;
but he was too scrupulous whoUy to ignore the claim of the latter. The
Regency was assigned to Orleans, tied down by a cooptative Council, which
controlled patronage ; to Maine was confided the guardianship of the
child-King, and the command of the household troops. This, hoped
Louis, would secure his great-grandson's safety, his son's prestige, and
the satisfaction of his nephew's reasonable expectations.
On September 1, 1715, the King died ; by the evening of September 2
the Regent was as powerful as he cared to be. The coup cTHat, sudden
as it seemed, had been sedulously prepared. Orleans had long lived in
dissipation and disgrace. He was suspected of clearing the path to
ultimate succession by poisoning all who stood before him ; his un-
questionable vices debarred him from decent society. Such energy as
his mistresses and champagne suppers left him he wasted on what were
regarded as frivolous pursuits — painting, music, carving, and chemistry.
Yet in Italy and Spain he had shown marked ability both as strategist
and administrator ; his liberality of thought and freedom from prejudice
well suited a new age. The short stout figure, the bad eyesight,
the contrast of black hair and a complexion fiery from excess, were
redeemed by a pleasant, open face, an easy dignity, an irresistible gaiety.
He never lost his rapid insight into men, especially into their weaknesses.
The more he promised, the readier were his petitioners to believe.
Orleans cared little for power, and would have gladly been left alone.
But disgraced men are often sensitive of their honour, and at this one
crisis he displayed the courage, the resource, the reserve of power which
intelligent idlers take long to lose — and the Regent was only forty-two.
Thus, then, he had wormed the dead King's testament out of Chancellor
1715] PMEp V and Orleans. 121
Voisin, had bought the colonels of the household troops by cash, the
political and military magnates by promises of office, the princes of the
blood by the humiliation of the bastards, the higher nobility by expec-
tations of an oligarchical constitution, the Parlement by hopes of restored
prerogatives. He could rally round him persecuted Jansenists and
Quietists, all those who writhed imder the austerity of the Maintenon
repression, all who wished France rid of Jesuits.
The Parlement was summoned for the morrow of the King's death.
In direct contravention of the testament, Orleans appeared unaccompanied
by Louis XV. His speech consisted of an imaginative embroidery on his
uncle's last wishes, and an attractive programme. He claimed the right
to command the royal guards, to nominate or dismiss members of the
CouncU of Regency, to monopolise royal patronage. Harmony was
only marred by an altercation with the Duke of Maine, and even this
turned to the Regent's advantage, for Maine refused the guardianship if
deprived of the command of the household. The Spanish ambassador,
Cellamare, had instructions to create a party and present a protest,
claiming the Regency for his master. The party was unformed, and the
protest remained unread. Ten days later the proceedings were confirmed
in a lit de justice, in the presence of the grave and feeble child-King of
four, who raised and replaced his cap as he was told. The Regent's
success was popular in Paris. The people felt the load of discipline
removed, and believed that the burden of taxation would be lightened.
They admired the sudden courage, the unexpected ability, of the long
calumniated debauchee. There was, perhaps, a generous reaction in his
favour. He had, writes Lemontey, the merit of having tired out the
satirist and the scandal-monger.
The Regent's triumph necessarily affected European politics, and
especially the relations of France and Spain. But for the Treaty of
Utrecht, Philip V came before Orleans, as being Louis XIV's direct
descendant. He had indeed most solemnly renounced his claims to the
French Crown, but in his supersensitive conscience self-interest disguised
itself as duty, whose call could loose the binding power of oaths. Orleans
had fought bravely for him in Italy and Spain ; but he was too popular
and independent to please the inept, shrinking King, and had been recalled
to France. Stories of plots to replace and even to poison Philip created
an atmosphere of horror and suspicion. Everjrwhere Orleans seemed to
stand just before or behind him. He blocked the way to the French
throne, and trod upon his heels in the succession to the Spanish.
Political grievances were aggravated by the personal contrast between
the sociable, liberal Orleans, lax in morals and cynical about religion,
and the proud, morbid Philip, obsessed by the dignity of kingship,
absorbed in marital duties and pietistic practices. Before Louis XIV's
death the rivals had been formally reconciled, and Orleans bore no malice ;
but Philip brooded on his wrongs, and the clash became inevitable.
122 Italian aims of Elisabeth Farnese. [i7i5
Philip V had now been for nine months married to his second wife,
Elisabeth Farnese of Parma. This girl, undistinguished by beauty,
education, or experience, had on her entry into Spain given proof of the
masterful temper, which for thirty years kept Europe in unrest. Madame
des Ursins had been sent by Louis XIV as Camarera Mayor to the late
Queen. Since then, save for a temporary recall, she had ruled King,
Queen and Government. Philip's new bride had been her choice.
Nevertheless, on the very stairs of the wayside inn where she first met
Madame des Ursins, Elisabeth picked a quarrel, and despatched her
shivering over the snowy mountains to the frontier. By next morning
Philip was his wife's slave for life. This strange consort had been
suggested on the day of the late Queen's funeral by the Parmesan
agent Giulio Alberoni, son of a gardener at Piacenza. He, too, had
urged her to rid herself of a rival influence, and thus he naturally became
the new Queen's confidential adviser. While Alberoni controlled the
ante-chamber, Elisabeth's nurse, Laura Pescatori, commanded the back-
stairs. There was already a powerful Italian party composed of Philip's
adherents from the lost provinces, and this now gained consistency.;
The aim of the Italo-Spanish Government was the undoing of the
Treaty of Utrecht. The immediate object was to secure for Elisabeth
the successions to Parma and Piacenza, at present occupied by her uncle
and stepfather, Francesco Farnese, and to Tuscany by virtue of her
descent from the Medici, who in the male line seemed drawing towards
extinction. A substantial wedge would thus be thrust in between the
Austrian possessions in northern and southern Italy. The motive was
strongly personal. It seemed probable either that Philip would die early,
or that the Spanish Coiu"t would be a nursery of Princes. The fate of a
Queen Dowager was a suttee of impecunious ennui, while it was not the
custom, as in France, to parcel out royal domain among younger sons.
Italy therefore must provide a retreat for Elisabeth and portions for her
cluldren. Such a project dovetailed into Alberoni's dearest interests — his
typical Italian love for his own little State, and his passion for Italian
liberation from the Austrian. The Duke of Parma was peculiarly exposed
to Imperial buffetings; and, even before Elisabeth's marriage, was the
only Italian Power prepared to run some risk for national independence.
Such then was the situation when Orleans became Regent. Being
himself the creation of the Treaty of Utrecht, he would naturally defend
its provisions, while Philip must sooner or later adopt the offensive, in
pursuance of either his own aims or his Queen's. Unfortunately these
were incompatible. If he could frankly have accepted the territorial
rearrangement, he might more safely .have intervened in France, or, if he
had honestly abandoned his French claims, he might have won support
from France in Italy. Insistence on both aims involved twofold in-
fraction of the treaties. For success in Italy the favour or neutrality
of the Western Powers was essential. Alberoni hoped to have secured
1715-7] Alliance of France and England. 123
England by the favourable commercial treaty of December, 1715. He
had no belief in the Pretender's success : his intention was to go behind
the rival dynasties, and propitiate the nation and the Parliament. But
George I, tied tightly by his German interests to the Emperor, made in
June, 1716, a defensive alliance with Charles VI.
The Regent and Alberoni had been well disposed towards each other,
for the latter had contributed to the outward reconciliation with Philip V.
In alarm at the Anglo- Austrian treaty Orleans turned definitely towards
Spain. Here he took his first false step by identifying the objects of
the Italian party with Philip's French ambitions. He instructed his
envoy, Louville, to divide and overthrow this party. Alberoni had
recently contrived the dismissal of its ostensible chief, Cardinal Giudice,
and now controlled the Government. Divining Louville's instructions,
he refused him a royal audience. In this he, in turn, overstepped the
mark, for Orleans, flouted by Spain, was thrown back on England.
Genuine friendship between France and England was difficult indeed.
The Whig Government was traditionally anti-French, while all French
sympathies were with the Stewarts. Orleans himself had no prejudices
against the Protestant establishment, no sympathy with the decorous
dulness of the Pretender's Court. The aristocratic constitutionalism of
Hanoverian England attracted him ; his disgrace had given him distaste
for the war, perhaps even a fellow-feeling for the enemy. The Orleanist
and Hanoverian dynasties were secured by the selfsame treaty. But the
Regent was easily led, and his Coimcil was anti-English and pro-Stewart.
Alliance even with the Emperor would have been less unpopular, and
Philip Vs hostility both to Orleans and Charles VI gave hopes of this,
until they were damped by demands for Strassburg and Alsace.
The isolation of France gave the Regent's humblest but cleverest
adviser, his old tutor Dubois, his opportunity. Dubois supplied back-
bone for his master's flexible volitions, and led him to the Triple Alliance
of January, 1717, elsewhere explained. Doubt remained whether the
Triple would become a Quadruple Alliance by inclusion of the Emperor
or Philip V, with both of whom England, which held the key of the
situation, had recently made treaties. A general pacification was im-
possible, while sanguine Neapolitan exiles predominated at Madrid, and
Catalan refugees had influence at Vienna.
Alberoni, meanwhile, was feverishly reforming Spain. He pared
away ineffective elements in the services, ships useless in the fighting
line, superfluous officers of rank. The bureaucracy was reduced, waste
and corruption in financial departments severely controlled. Along the
Spanish sea-board fortresses, arsenals, and shipbuilding yards were rising.
Above all Alberoni relied on colonial revival, and was untiring in improving
communications, and regularising trade. That Spain might not have
only a market but products to sell therein, and so retain the precious
metals perpetually drained a,broad, he stimulated native manufactures.
124 Foreign policy of Alberom. [1714-8
The improvements ascribed to him might seem exaggerations but for
Stanhope's evidence that no power could resist Spain after a few
years more of such advance. These few years were not vouchsafed.
Alberoni had prayed for five, wherein to organise resources and equip
armaments ; he had at most two before his hand was forced.
Aggressive as Spain now became, it was not without provocation.
No sooner had Sicily been granted to Savoy than the Emperor intrigued
for its possession. His scheme was in flagrant contraiiiction to the
treaties. It was one thing that Sicily should be held by a weak Power
with little or no marine, another that it should serve the Emperor's
intelligent naval and commercial projects, and directly menace Spain's
Mediterranean coast line. To Spain, moreover, had been conceded the
reversion to Sicily in default of the House of Savoy. She was therefore
not unreasonable in forestalling a policy imjust to herself and destructive
of recent treaties. The Austro-Turkish War expedited the opening of
hostilities. It would be perilous to wait tiU Austria's victories set her
arms free for Italy. Alberoni's promise to the Pope of a squadron to
cooperate with Venice against the infidel provided a pretext for mobilisa-
tion, while rupture was provoked by the insolent arrest of Cardinal Molines,
the new Inquisitor-General, by Austrian officials in Lombardy. Alberoni
privately threw the blame on the stupid octogenarian Cardinal. He was
scarcely ready for war, and was awaiting a Cardinal's hat, his reward for
reopening friendly relations with the Papacy which his French predecessors
had suspended. The Inquisitor's arrest, however, acted powerfully upon
Philip's pugnacity, and Alberoni, securing his hat, had no sufficient motive
for postponement.
Alberoni, by seizing Sardinia, deprived Charles VI of the equivalent
which was to be granted to Victor Amadeus for Sicily. It was, moreover,
a convenient half-way house to the Spanish fortress of Porto Longone
in Elba, and a stepping-stone for Tuscany. This easy success and the
fluttering anxiety of the Western Powers encouraged the bolder move on
Sicily. Both islands were old possessions of Aragon, older than the union
with Castile or the conquest of Granada or Navarre, of Naples or Milan.
Their character was more Spanish than Italian, and Spanish rule was
infinitely less unpopular than Austrian or Savoyard. It was argued that,
as they were not parts of Italy, their occupation was no infringement of
treaties. To the last moment the Powers doubted whether Spain was
acting as Victor Amadeus' ally or enemy: he was treating both at
Vienna and Madrid.
The landing of Spanish troops near Palermo on July 1, 1718, settled
the conclusion of the Quadruple Alliance. Savoy acceded to it, and Spain
was completely isolated. Alberoni's hopes had been placed on France
and Holland, and, indeed, Dubois had with the utmost difficulty kept
Orleans true to England. On the night of August 10-11 an English
squadron, acting as the Emperor's auxiliary, destroyed the Spanish fleet.
1719-21] Fall of Alberoni. 125
laden with troops and unprepared for action, off Cape Passaro. Alberoni
was now reduced to his more fanciful expedients, to risings of provincial
malcontents and disaffected legitimists against the Begent, attacks on
Charles VI by the Tsar and Prussia, and a landing in England by the King
of Sweden, combined with an expedition from Spain. But Alberoni's
tools all broke in his hand. Charles XII was kUled ; the Tsar remained
inactive; the Turks were forced to the Peace of Passarowitz. The
dramatic disclosure of the Duchess of Maine's intrigues with the Spanish
envoy Cellamare, who was totally incredulous as to their utility, gave
Orleans the much needed pretext for declaring war in January, 1719.
England had already done so in December.
French armies invaded Spain from the west and the east of the
Pyrenees, and in the disaffected north-western provinces made rapid pro-
gress. The considerable expedition which sailed for England under Ormond
was wrecked off Finisterre. TTie new arsenals at Vigo and Ferrol were
destroyed by English ships aided by French soldiers. Alberoni clutched,
as a last straw, at the preparations for a Breton revolt. But the auxiliary
Spanish squadron was blockaded by the English in Corunna ; and, when
it reached Santander in November instead of September the Admiral
refused to sail. The best Spanish troops, locked up in Sicily without
hope of reinforcement, won a brilliant victory over the Austrians at
Franca Villa, but in October held little more than Palermo. Peace was
essential, and Alberoni knew it. The combination against Spain was
turning into a conspiracy against himself, in which France and England,
the King and Queen of Spain, and even the Duke of Parma, all took a
part. On December 15, 1719, Philip condemned him to immediate
banishment. He took refuge in Genoese territory at Sestri Levante,
and afterwards lay hid in Austrian Lombardy ; whence, on Clement XI's
death, he travelled in disguise to Bome to take part in the Conclave.
Alberoni was the scapegoat who bore with him the sins of all whom
he had served, or whom he had opposed. But memory is an optimist,
and whenever the Spanish Court was in difficulty there were schemes for
his recall. Elisabeth confessed as late as 1743 that he was a great
minister, and that she might have pardoned him but for the King's dis-
like. As a diplomatist Alberoni was over-subtle and over-sanguine, not
sufficiently patient and too hot-tempered. He lacked the sense of the
relative possibilities which opportunities offered. But for Italy he had
genuine patriotism, and for Spain a sense of duty. If he was an
adventurer, self-interest was not his strongest motive. His chief personal
aim was the cardinalate, because this alone gave him adequate security,
and the status which enabled him to control the government of a foreign
country. But it was also of value for Spanish and Parmesan interests.
Without any administrative training he believed in his own power of
revival and reform. His results were considerable, nor did they quite
die with him. He had given a stimulus to Spanish- American trade, and
CH. IV.
126 Franco-Spanish maiirriages. [i7ao-3
prestige to Spanish arms, in spite of their reverses. From the first he
had realised the value of Patiiio, who was to be the greatest Spanish
minister of the century. The story of the Triple and Quadraple
Alliances is that of a duel between the sons of a French chemist and
an Italian gardener, between scientific opportunism and constructive
imagination. Dubois won; but, within Alberoni's life-time or soon after,
the greater part of his Italian projects found fulfilment.
The pretensions of Philip V delayed his accession to the Quadruple
Alliance until January 26, 1720. Sardinia was transferred to Victor
Amadeus, and Sicily to Charles VI. Philip renewed his renunciation of
the French Crown, and recognised the Emperor's claim to the Italian
provinces which he now occupied. Charles VI, less honest, continued to
thwart the succession of a Spanish prince to Tuscany and Parma. Rela-
tions between Spain and France grew closer, and on March 27, 1721,
a formal alliance was concluded, which England joined in June. France
had ceded all places captured in the war, including Pensacola, to which
much importance was assigned. George I, not to be behindhand in
generosity, wrote that he would take the first opportunity of surrendering
Gibraltar. England and France resolved to press in concert the claims
of Spain at the coming Congress of Cambray.
Disquietude was still caused by rumours that Philip V was negotiating
the marriage of the Infants with Austrian Archduchesses, an expedient
suggested by Alberoni. He gave the lie to these reports by suddenly
offering the Infanta's hand to Louis XV, and by the yet more surprising
proposal that his own heir should marry the Regent's daughter,
Mademoiselle de Montpensier. The princesses were exchanged on
January 9, 1722. A year later Mademoiselle de Beaujolais followed her
sister to Spain as jumcke of Elisabeth's eldest son Don Carlos. Philip's
motives are to be found in his intended abdication. He wished to leave
his children seciu:ely guarded by French protection. The Angevin claims
to the French succession would at least be realised in his daughter's line.
Should Louis XV die before a son was bom, the Infanta might be strong
enough to overthrow the Orleanist succession in her father's or her
brother's favour. The marriage of the Regent's daughter with Don
Carlos would secure French support for Elisabeth's Italian schemes.
For Orleans the prospects were yet more brilliant. Don Luis and his
father were, said Schaub, as like as two drops of water, both in body and
mind, so that the prince would let himself be governed by his wife, who
would prevent him from disputing the Orleanist claims to the IVendi
throne. The Regent's influence would prevail in Spain, while in France
the Opposition would receive its ccmp de grace.
Orleans could now stand without Hanoverian support. An Orleanist
Family Compact might even have forestalled those of the later Bourbons.
England feared this French predominance at Madrid, and her ambassador.
Colonel Stanhope, watched the Pretender's partisans. The policy of Dubois
1715-23] Constitutional- changes during the Regency. 127
seemed to be veering towards the Vatican. Death came to England's
aid. Dubois died in August, 1723. When, in December, the Regent
was struck down, the family alliance was imperilled. It is said that
Philip showed unseemly pleasure at the death of his old rival and new
connexion. He could never forget his own forsworn claims to France or
his ridiculous fears of poison.
The hopes of reform which Orleans had inspired were not fulfilled.
With all a drunkard's optimism, he probably himself mistook a pro-
gramme of promises for a scheme of government. Though he worked
laboriously to redeem his pledges, excess had weakened the power of
continuous will and consecutive thought. Even the art of pleasing needs
perpetual pains. Brave enough for momentary action, Orleans had not
the courage of his convictions, nor always the convictions. Yet failure
was mainly due to his heritage of national debt. But for this his honesty
of intention, his liberal instincts, and quickness of vision might have
carried him creditably through his short lease of power. His first
measures were auspicious. The establishment of the young King in the
TuUeries propitiated the capital. Taxes were lowered, and the army
reduced by 25,000 men, who were settled on uncultivated lands. The
ParUment recovered its ancient right of remonstrance. Immensely
popular was the release of persecuted Jansenists from the Bastille ; yet
Orleans would not curry favour by counter-persecution of the Jesuits.
The Council of Regency included almost all those whom Louis XIV
had nominated. Orleans, perhaps imprudently, gratified the faithful
Saint-Simon's darling wish by adopting the late Duke of Burgundy's
schem,e for departmental Councils, to lessen governmental centralisa-
tion, and provide scope for the more ambitious or industrious nobility.
Louis XIV had condemned the project as incompatible with the French
character. It was, indeed, exotic, imported from Spain at the moment
when she had substituted the French absolutist plan for this very system,
whereby the nobles had dominated the bureaucracy. After all, the idea
had its merits. Men were looking in all directions for relief from the
strain of absolutism. An elaborate representation of the Parisian and
provincial law Courts had been suggested, and also a revival of the
Estates General. Nobody, however, believed in the utility of Estates
General, and few besides lawyers admired the Parlements. France was
in no danger of reverting to feudalism, and it might be worth while
to raise the nobility from the worthlessness to which absolutism had
condemned it, by opening a career in the national Councils.
Seven departmental Councils were created, finding a point of contact
in the Council of Regency, where their presidents had a deliberative
voice, Saint-Simon wished membership to be confined to the greater
nobles, but Orleans must find place for the more intelligent of his rouis,
while he knew that between ignorance and indolence, pride and pleasure,
little practical work would- be accomplished without leaven from the
128 Financial collapse. [1715-23
industrious and experienced bureaucracy. It was a clumsy expedient,
intended mainly to win temporary support. Yet, perhaps, the fault of
failure lay neither with Saint-Simon, nor Orleans, nor the Councils them-
selves, but with the immemorial preference for being governed rather
than for governing.
Upon Noailles, president of the Council of Finance, fell the burden
of the accumulating debt. Fertile in expedients as he was, they were
but palliatives for the State, though deadly enough for the capitalists of
the late reign. His final proposal was the least possible or palatable
for a young Government — severe economy for fifteen years. Then Law
foimd his opportunity, and on the foundations of his bank and his
modestly capitalised Mississippi Company reared the fantastic edifice of
credit, which, in the architect's own metaphor, reached its seven storeys—
a height too stupendous for the sound but slight substructure, which
was built for three. The phenomenal success and startling failure of
Law's System, which is discussed more fully elsewhere, aflected, not only
the character of French society, but the Government's popularity and
policy. For a time the Regency seemed the realisation of the age of
gold, or, better still, of appreciated paper ; but, when the crash came, the
Government had to bear the blame of the nation's speculative craze.
The violent measures which forced those who had realised their holdings
at high prices to disgorge gratified the populace for the moment, but
added to the area of discontent. The collapse, moreover, coincided with
the outbreak of plague which between June and December, 1720,
destroyed one-third of the inhabitants of Marseilles. Aix, Aries,
Avignon, and Toulon suffered scarcely less, and the scourge reached the
northern provinces, though in a mitigated and sporadic form. At the
close of the disastrous year Rennes, the capital of Britanny, was burnt to
the ground. "Fire at Rennes: Plague in Provence: Ruin of Paris" are
three headings of the chapter of Barbier's memoirs which deals with a
single black month.
The Liberalism of the Regency was short-lived. There was an inevit-
able, if unconscious, return to the irresponsible absolutism, which, when
at its best, had suited the national temperament. Liberalism, moreover,
is apt to be absolutist, when once its own ideals of liberty are questioned.
Orleans had imagined that the sources of danger would be reactionary,
the claims, that is, of Louis XIV's legitimised sons, or of his grandson,
Philip V. He soon, however, discovered perilous progressive possibilities
Each of these dangers had, speaking roughly, its ecclesisistical aspect.
Jesuitism allied itself with the old monarchical party, Jansenism with
the new aspirations. Thus the incidents of the Regency are blows struck
alternately or coincidently at both forms of Opposition, until the Govern-
ment became outwardly as absolute as that of Louis XIV himself.
The Duke of Maine sat still under his first affront ; but the Duchess,
a tiny elf-like sprite of mischief, converted her salon into a hot-bed of
1717-8] Quarrel between Regent and Parlement. 129
intrigue, unaware that her infantile airs and calculated cajoleries were
watchfully observed. Orleans would have left matters alone ; he liked
Maine's brother, the Count of Toulouse, and was considerate, if unfaithful,
towards his own wife, their sister. But he was pushed by Bourbon and
other princes of the blood, and by the Dukes, who posed as successors of
the old Peers of France. The nobility in general resented the pretensions
of the Peers, and supported Maine and Toulouse. When Orleans forbade
their assemblies, they protested before the Parlement that the status of
the legitimised Princes could only be altered by the King when of age,
or by the Estates General. Orleans was annoyed or alarmed into action,
and the Council deprived the Princes of the right of succession and most
of the prerogatives of blood royal. The edict was registered in Parle-
ment with hesitation. It had little sympathy with the Bastards, but
was at issue with the Peers on the portentous problem when and whether
the President and the Peers should respectively raise their hats. There
were symptoms therefore of a struggle of classes, which the Regency
seemed too weak to stifle.
The friendship of the Regent and the Parlement was soon over.
The latter hoped by refusing to register Edicts to establish a veto on
legislation. No King had tolerated this claim, and Orleans declined to
prejudice a minor's rights. He braced himself for the conflict by re-
placing his original triumvirate of ministers by a second. The liberal,
widely read Noailles, who could argue for and against his own effervescent
fads and freaks on successive days, gave place to Law, whom the Parle-
ment from the first opposed. D'Aguesseau, an honourable and learned
lawyer with Jansenist proclivities, was too favourable to the Parlement,
whereas a Chancellor's mission was to uphold the Crown's residuary
jiudsdiction against the delegated authority of the Courts. His successor,
d'Argenson, late Minister of Police, was a foe of lawyers and Jansenists,
courageous and industrious, tempering an iron fist by a witty tongue,
a finished student of the weaknesses of French mankind. Finally, to the
surprise of all. Marshal d'HuxeUes, Minister for Foreign Affairs, gave
place to the Abbe Dubois, to whose private character gossip has been,
perhaps, unfairly spiteful, but who was gifted with the priceless qualities
of persistence and persuasion.
Orleans provoked the conflict by registering an edict for remintage
in the Cour des Monnaies instead of in the Parlement, which retaliated
by forbidding the manufacture and issue of the coinage (June, 1718).
It attacked Law by ordering the exclusion of naturalised aliens from
state finance. Justice was almost suspended, but the Mint worked
quietly imder the protection of fixed bayonets. Pickets watched the
circulation of the coinage in the markets; muskets rattled on the
pavement outside the Parlemenfs printing-press. A flood of atrocious
libels against Orleans poured forth from legal circles and from the
Duchess of Maine's coterie. The accidental discovery of the Memoirs
c. M. H. VI. OH. rv. 9
130 Suppression of Breton Uherties. [i7i7-9
of Cardinal de Retz had caused indescribable sensation. The Fronde
had returned with the old combination of prince and lawyer against the
Crown.
If the lawyers had read history aright, they might have realised their
powerlessness. The insignificant Dubois sufficed to shatter the combi-
nation. On August 20 he arrived, having concluded the Quadruple
Alliance. Six days later, in a lit de justice, the Bastards were reduced to
their rank as Dukes and Peers, though Toulouse was granted his pre-
rogatives for life. The Parlement lost its right of remonstrance, and was
degraded to the position held under Louis XIV's humiliating ordinance
of 1667. Two Presidents and a Councillor, who had been among the
noisiest, were exiled. The Duchess of Maine plunged wildly into the
plot for Philip V, which, though named after Cellamare, was recognised
as hers. This was the final ruin of her cause, for it gave Orleans the
justification for the Spanish War.
More serious than these Parisian troubles was the threatened revolt
of Britanny, for which the Government was wholly to blame. The
relation of this province to France under the treaties of union was
almost federal. The Breton Estates of 1717 were within their rights
in refusing to vote the subsidy without enquiry into provincial finances.
The Government replied by dismissal of the Estates, levy of tax by edict,
illegal garrison, and arrest of members of the nobility and the Parlement
who protested. In 1718 the imposition of a toll on wine was a formal
breach of the Act of Union. The Parlement of Rennes forbade the
levy ; the Governor made wholesale arrests ; and the nobles formed an
association for resistance.
This organisation had no connexion with the Cellamare conspiracy,
which was over by the close of 1718, whereas the Bretons only armed in
the following spring. Two nobles, acting on their own initiative, brought
in June, 1719, a promise of Spanish aid. If the Bretons had struck at
once, they might have caused serious embarrassment, especially as the
Poitevin gentry felt some sympathy. The delay of the Spanish auxiliaries
gave time for the conspiracy to leak out. In September, troops were
poured into Britanny, and a penal commission established. The leaders
were executed in person or in effigy, and the province was treated as a
conquest. The suppression of the last genuine provincial liberties in
France must be debited to the Regency. Another step towards absolutism
was the dismissal of the Departmental Councils, which were replaced
by the old Secretarial system. The Parlement had a fresh flickeir of
courage on the first symptoms of Law's collapse, which entailed
d'Aguesseau's reinstatement, in order to conciliate public opinion. But
the Regent went yet further than Louis XIV, and exiled the Courts to
Pontoise for some six months.
The Council of Regency, next, lost such independence as it possessed
— a loss resulting from the gain of a cardinalship by Dubois. For four
1721-3] Ministry of Dubois. 131
years the purple was his aim, and he enlisted such heterogeneous allies
as George I and the Pretender, the Emperor and Philip V. As an
intermediate step, English influence helped him to the archbishopric of
Cambray. Clement XI was never to be brought to fulfil his promise of a
Eat ; but the agents of Dubois, headed by Cardinal de Rohan, contributed
largely to Innocent XIII's election, and in July, 1721, Dubois obtained
the hat, which is said to have cost France eight million francs. The
political object was soon apparent. Rohan on his return was admitted
to the Council. His claim to precedence led to the withdrawal of the
Dukes and Chancellor d'Aguesseau. But Rohan was merely the warming-
pan for Dubois, who now became a member and the Council's ruling
spirit. An all-powerful Ministry was thus prepared for the cessation of
the Regency on the King's majority. There was, however, a personal
factor which might prove dangerous. Louis XV seemed attached to his
governor, Villeroi, who somewhat posed as a leader of opposition to
Orleans. Personal monarchy might after all be restored for Villeroi's
benefit. The Regent forced a quarrel upon the old Marshal, trapped
him, and sent him far from Coui-t. Fleury, who was the King's tutor,
affected to retire, but Orleans could not dispense with the one man who
had the boy's confidence. A little note from Louis brought the tutor
back from his mock hiding-place.
Dubois now received the title of First Minister, and the Regency
might safely end. The King was consecrated at Rheims; and, on
February 16, 1723, the Regent came to the royal bedside to resign his
office, telling the boy of thirteen that he was now absolute ruler of the
State. The character of the Government remained unchanged. Orleans
was President of the Council. Dubois, aping Richelieu, monopolised
patronage, accumulated benefices, presided over the assembly of the
Clergy, took his seat in the Academy. His vanity was laughable, but his
administration not injudicious. The good humour of Orleans tempered
his outbursts of passion, and his tendency to persecute the Jansenists.
Ultramontanism was advancing step by step with absolutism. Dubois
without scruple threw his weight on the side of Rome, and the Bull
Unigemtus was accepted by the Grand Council : its registration was the
price paid by the Parlement for release from its exile at Pontoise.
Dubois had not long to live. It is said that his enemies in the
Ministry deliberately killed him, by plying his insatiable brain with
business. He died on August 10, 1723, leaving an evil reputation in an
age peculiarly debased. Yet there have been respectable ministers in
virtuous epochs who could be better spared. Every venomous pen in
France poisoned the memory of Dubois, but a heavy fall in Mississippi
Stock has been called his funeral panegyric. Orleans became First
Minister, but the work was beyond his failing powers. On December 2
he was sitting before the fire with the Duchess of Falari, awaiting the
King's commands, when the apoplexy of which he had been forewarned
OH. IV. 9—2
132 Death of Orleans. [1715-23
struck him down. He fell with his head upon the knees of this frail
and luckless beauty of his set — a fitting ending.
The liberal hopes, constitutional and religious, with which the
Regency had opened ended in disillusion. The period is remembered
for little else than an overflow of sensualism and gigantic financial
failure. Yet the colours may be unduly dark. The flaunting vice of a
clique is often represented as a natural reaction against the austerity of
Louis XIV's later years. And, again, the examples of Orleans and his
eldest daughter are made responsible for an epidemic of drink and lust.
This view is, however, too favourable to the French society of the age,
and too hard upon the Regency, The most flagrant sins and the most
notorious sinners existed without disguise under the Maintenon regime.
Orleans himself had been only one of many notable ofifenders. The
change was less one of natiure than of pose. The scandals of the
Regency were the outcome of fashion rather than of passion. Men
hitherto respectable appeared drunk in public, and paraded their mis-
tresses, as a concession to their social standing. Great ladies surrendered
themselves to the Duke of Richelieu, not because they were enamoured
of his silly oval face or brutal impudence, but because their reputation
in the smart set depended on their being the heroines of his anecdotes of
his bonnes fortunes.
The open vices of Orleans and his daughters doubtless contributed to
the prevailing shamelessness of sin ; but he was hardly popular enough
to lead the fashion, and he had some scruples. When the King was
taken to Versailles, the Regent kept his own mistresses at a distance.
He had not the brutality of members of the Houses of Bourbon and
Conti.; he treated with respect his indolent, worthless wife, who, as his
mother said, ruined his life, and brought her children to the gutter from
neglect. In the reliable memoirs the vilest stories relate, not to Orleans,
but to other princes; it would be uncritical to credit the farrago of
lustful libels concocted for political consumption by the Duchess of
Maine's coterie. He was, writes Saint-Simon, bored with himself from
birth. He sought relief in wine and witty women ; vice with him was
neither passion nor fashion, but the tiresome habit of a tired man.
The example of the princes was followed by the dukes, by such of
the nobility as came in contact with society, by lawyers and financiers.
As in the sixteenth century young widows flocked to Paris to find
husbands, so in the eighteenth they crowded thither to seek lovers. In
Court circles, and far below them, the marriage tie was a mere slip-knot,
Judicial separation came into use. It was as easy, wrote Madame, to
cast off a wife or a husband as a mistress or a lover ; only among the
lower classes did married love still linger. Morality suffered by the
passion for the stage. Actors and actresses, singers and dancers became
the rage. The masked balls at the Opera, a prominent feature of the
Regency, were the usual source of seduction, as in the case of the Regent's
1715-22] Society under the Begency. 133
son, who afterwards scrambled from the quagmire to the heights of pro-
priety. Gambling was stimulated by the speculative mania of Law's period.
The King was infected while still a boy, while the Regent's daughter,
Mademoiselle de Valois, on her leisurely journey to marry the Prince of
Modena, carried the taint into the provinces. Suicide naturally became
a vogue, and was dramatically performed, as when a young actress
destroyed herself in her paint, her beauty-spots, and her flesh-coloured
stockings, or a nobleman plunged into the Seine, with sword in one hand,
and gold-headed cane in the other.
It may be doubted whether France was really impoverished by the
crash of Law's System, although she suffered much temporary incon-
venience. It was noticed at the time that the money taken from Peter's
pocket was put into that of Paul. The result was a redistribution of
wealth, and a consequent shaking-up of classes, for all speculated, and
success became the standard of repute. The cook in diamonds who was
recognised at an Opera ball doubtless made a genteel match. Nobles
who disdained to take a direct part in commerce were without shame
as shareholders in joint-stock undertakings, just as, under the Second
Empire, leaders of fashion contributed capital to the great Parisian
shops. Country gentlemen, who at the close of Louis XIV's reign could
not meet their mortgage interest, in the palmy days of the System paid
off their mortgages, and left their property unencumbered. Agriculture
throve, not merely owing to peace, but to the rise of prices during the
speculative period, which benefited landlord, peasant-proprietor, and
labourer for wage. The rapid growth of Paris was no unmixed advan-
tage, but a permanent boon was her closer intercourse with the great
seaports. Always the capital of pleasure, she was henceforth also the
capital of commerce. Her material necessities and the very shock of
speculation quickened the inert population of the central provinces.
Orleans, like the equally abused Napoleon III, did much to revive
provincial France. During his short career he is said to have done more
road-making than Louis XIV in his long reign, while the slower con-
struction of canals owed to him at least the plans. The Regent was, for
his day, a free trader, removing inter-provincial restrictions, encouraging
untrammelled commerce with and between the colonies, allowing a more
liberal export trade to foreign countries. The admixture of banished
salt-smugglers and the sweepings of gaols and hospitals with innocent
girls seized by press-gangs and industrious Swiss and German emigrants,
was not a promising foundation for a colony, and yet New Orleans has
perpetuated the Regent's name. The settlement of the Mauritius and
the fortification of the lie Royale off Newfoundland bore witness to
French activity in southern and northern seas.
France under the Regency benefited by a breathing-space from the
baleful governance of women. The English might be ruled by women,
scornfully said Madame, but it did not suit the French. Of all the
134 Abdication of Philip F. [1715-24
Regent's mistresses not one had political influence. When Madame de
Sabran pressed him, he took her to a mirror and asked if politics were fit
for such a pretty face. In all his drunken bouts he never revealed state
secrets. His intoxication was, perhaps, rather that of the weak head
than of the sot. The first glass of champagne set his tongue wagging
with such blasphemous indecency that his presence at his wife's table
became impossible. Yet he could cut off, as it were, connexion of
tongue and brain, and drink never obtained complete mastery of his
reason.
The Duke of Chartres was too young to succeed his father as First
Minister, and it was therefore impossible to ignore the Duke of Boin:bon.
Fleury proposed him to the King, and the silent boy nodded assent.
Orleans and Dubois were soon regretted, for once more a woman was at
the helm. The big-boned, one-eyed, brutal Bourbon was the bond-slave
of the aerial sylph-like beauty and engaging mock-modesty of his
mistress, Madame de Prie. Being too stupid for practical administra-
tion, he took as working partner PMs Duvemey, youngest of the four
sons of a Dauphinois innkeeper, who had made fortunes by army
contracts, and then fattened on the national bankruptcy of the Regency.
Paris was a capable agent, with some ingenuity in meeting emergencies,
no scruple as to means, and no outlook on the future. This trio now
governed France.
Six weeks after the Regent's death Spain had its counterpart sensa-
tion. On January 10, 1724, Philip V announced his abdication. This
was no sudden freak, for in 1721 the King and Queen had bound
themselves to retirement by solemn oaths, which were annually renewed.
Philip's religious mania was the real cause, though contemporaries attri-
buted his action to a belief that abdication would facilitate succession to
the French Crown. The site chosen for spiritual preparation was the
gorgeous palace of San Ildefonso, constructed in a clearing of the dense
Segovian forest, and surrounded with snow mountains "of a very hideous
aspect." The sums squandered on the palace and its gardens had been
torture to Alberoni; the approach thereto was martyrdom for elderly
ambassadors.
The close of Philip's first reign is a convenient stage at which to take
stock of the character of Spanish administration, and of the personal
influences of King and Queen. A complete contrast to France of the
Regency was Philip V's Spain, governed from the low four-post marriage
bed, four feet in width. Here each morning the King and Queen in their
dressing-jackets received their Chief Secretary, who wrote his instructions,
while Philip read despatches and Elisabeth worked and commented.
The Queen's wiU had become her husband's law, yet not without
humouring and watching, for Philip, though irresolute, was prejudiced,
and indolence was balanced by self-conceit. He must therefore be coaxed
to assimilate her likes and dislikes, to imagine her suggestions to be his
1714-24] Character of Elisabeth. 135
own ideas. If once she lost touch of the drift of his mind, if once
another influence gained the mastery, her game was lost. Thus the
eternal tete-a-tete was as necessary to Elisabeth as to Philip, whose
uxoriousness was as sensuous as the Regent's infidelities. Never for a
night did she sleep from his side ; never for a day had she time to herself,
save the fifteen minutes when she donned her shoes and stockings, or the
weekly hour in which Philip received the report of the Council of Castile.
On his wife Philip depended for appropriate replies when giving
audience, while he shifted from foot to foot, or poised himself upon his
heels; a pluck at her gown would warn her that he wished the inter-
viewer gone. Elisabeth must walk at his side during his three rounds
at mall, applaud the good strokes, and explain away the bad. With
confinement approaching or just past, she must jolt over rough roads in
the seven-windowed chariot to sit for silent hours on rush-bottom chairs
in the shelter, past which the game was ultimately driven, and from
which King and Queen fired shot for shot. For Philip Elisabeth must
abandon her favourite amusements, her cards, and the music in which
she excelled. Balls were forbidden as alien to Spanish character and
conducive to impropriety, yet a Court dance was occasionally permitted.
Here her husband and her step-sons were Elisabeth's only partners.
Fortunately Don Luis danced as divinely as herself; Saint-Simon alleges
that, could the Opera but engage them, the price of stalls would rise.
In meat and drink alone the Queen allowed herself some independence.
She was not content with the soup, poultry, and invariable loin of veal
which formed the King's daily dinner, preferred champagne to his
burgundy, and, in spite of his wishes, .could not break herself of snuiF.
The tragic monotony of such a life might well have proved fatal to
reason or morality. Elisabeth was saved by natural high spirits, by
absence of self -consciousness, by growing mental activity. Above all, her
passion for her children's advancement became all absorbing. Thus,
notwithstanding outward constraint, she was never without excitement.
She doubtless enjoyed the hot temper, which ambassadors politely
described as vivacity, and which had no slight results on European
politics. Sometimes it was natiu:al, sometimes assumed, but the out-
bursts were short and sharp, and anger soon yielded to her own sense of
humour or her husband's gentleness. Some of the envoys whom she
handled most roughly liked her best ; and, indeed, her cheerfulness, her
lack of affectation, her natural conversational gifts must have been a
relief in eighteenth century Court life. Yet her political dibut was not
promising. Her mode of life, added to some innate indolence, prevented
any possibility of study. The daily experience of royal audiences taught
her in time to judge of men and measures ; but the process was very slow.
Hampered by Philip's presence, she could never talk freely to ambassadors
or ministers. Unpopularity made her suspicious, and thus in early days
she was subject to misconceptions, rejecting straightforward criticism
136 The government of Spain. [1714-24
and counsel for the crooked approaches of adventurers. Spaniards re-
spected Philip, but disliked Elisabeth, They resented her marriage as a
misalliance, and were further alienated by her favour for Alberoni. She
made no concealment of returning. this dislike. She was tolerant towards
Philip's personal Spanish friends and French followers, but her sympathies
were with the Italian party, to which were attached the Flemings, and to
some extent the Irish. An entourage of exiles is a sorry school of politics.
Alberoni's fall left Spain virtually without government, Grimaldo
was as yet little more than confidential secretary. He seemed destined
to be a stop-gap. His loyalty and patriotism, capacity and experience,
qualified him to steer the State more than once through the ground-
swells which followed squalls. Ambassadors laughed at, but liked, the
bourgeois Biscayan, who boasted of noble Italian origin. He was fair
and fet as a Fleming, with bright blue eyes and a clever, kindly face ;
his small hands pressed upon a portly paunch emphasised his arguments
or compliments by appropriate gesticulations of their elastic fingers.
The bribes accepted by him to gratify his grasping wife did not affect
his policy.
Of constitutional machinery little was left. Alberoni's French pre-
decessors paved the way towards absolutism by introducing the French
secretarial system, with four Ministers for Foreign Affairs, Marine and
Indies, War, and Ecclesiastical and Judicial Affairs, and an Intendant-
General of Finance. Alberoni had reduced these five to three by
accumulation of offices. They referred matters for discussion to the
ancient Councils of Castile, Finance, the Indies, War, and the Military
Orders. On their report the King decided, after consultation with his
confessor and the Queen. Alberoni discredited the once influential
Council of State. The Castilian Cortes were almost as defunct as the
French Estates General. The liberties of Navarre, Aragon, Valencia, and
Catalonia had been engulfed, by the cataclysm of civil war.
For personal monarchy Philip's personality was singularly unfitted.
He could never make up his mind, and, indeed, had little mind to make
up, though what judgment he retained was sometimes sound. The illness
of 1718, which ranged from dropsy to dementia, left its traces. For a
superstitious man it was unfortunate that his shirts and sheets should
emit phosphorescent light, even when manufactured by the holiest nuns,
and tended by the Queen's own nurse. Saint-Simon found him in 1720
sadly altered. His chin projected at almost right angles from his face ;
his feet knocked each other in his hurried walk, while his knees were
twelve inches apart. He had a sawny manner and a drawling voice.
His clothes did little to set him off, for he wore his brown serge suits to
rags. Conscience was Philip's curse. Besides confessing twice a day, he
would summon his confessors at all hours of day or night. In vain they
iu?ged that duty had superior claims to conscience. His only obvious
merit was a certain dignity, which Louis XIV's descendants found it
1724] The reign of LmIs I. — Re-accession of Philip V. 137
hard to lose. Nevertheless those who kiiew Philip the more closely
loved him best. That he retained, without a breath of scandal, the
affection of his ill-nurtured, ill-regulated Queen, amid an epidemic of
matrimonial infidelity, must be placed to the credit of both consorts.
Spain was jubilant over the accession of Luis, a Spanish-bom King,
but the experiment proved a dismal failure. It was easier for Philip
and Elisabeth to lay aside their crowns than their habit of command.
They kept with them Grimaldo, whose creatures, interspersed with
nonentities, filled the young King's Council, while its secretary, Orendayn,
had been successively his page and clerk. "In every petty matter,"
wrote the Venetian envoy Bragadin, "the oracle was consulted at
San Ildefonso : it might be said that the royal title was at Madrid, its
essence at San Ildefonso." Luis, a youth of sixteen, was unfitted for
power by shyness, indolence, and preference for servants' society. His
Queen had from her first arrival scandalised the Court by her gross
vulgarity, her pronounced dislike for Elisabeth, and her unveiled con-
tempt for Luis. On her promotion sulkiness yielded to high spirits;
her gluttony and indelicacy passed all bounds. Spanish prudery was
shocked by a Queen who scoured the royal gardens in her night-gown,
or was rescued in such costume from the heights of a ladder by an
indiscreet French officer. Luis placed her under restraint by way of
punishment ; but the tactful French ambassador, Tess^, contrived a
temporary reconciliation.
On August 81, 1724, Luis died of small-pox, commending to bis
father his girl-wife, who had made atonement by her courage in nursing
him, when others held aloof. Everyone hoped that she would die of
the penalty which her imusual devotion entailed, but she recovered, and
found recompense in wilder licence. She was but fourteen, but in
wisdom, till her dying day, she never aged.
By the Act of Abdication the Crown should have passed to Ferdinand,
who was not quite twelve. The nobility desired a long minority which
might restore its influence. The confessor Bermudez implored Philip
to keep his oath, and a committee of theologians opined that he should
at most govern till Ferdinand was of age. But Philip was moved to
resimiption by Elisabeth's tears, her nurse's objurgations, and Tessa's
arguments and entreaties. The Council of Castile recommended this,
though with hesitation, some members thinking that Philip's absolutism
should be limited. Tesse cleverly suggested an appeal to the Pope, in
the person of his Nuncio, Aldobrandini, who naturally gave the desired
reply. Philip was King again. For Tess^ Philip's resumption was a
triumph for French influence. The President of Castile and others of
the national party were disgraced. Grimaldo, who was thought to have
English sympathies, offered passive resistance to dismissal ; but Orendayn
was pushed up to an independent position beside him. Nevertheless,
while the old ambassador was pluming himself, this very Orendayn
138 Italian claims of Don Carlos. [1724-5
had signed the instructions for a diplomatic revolution, which was
nothing less than the reconversion of Spain from a Bourbon to a Habsburg
Power. Success would ultimately have entailed the substitution of a
personal union between Spain and Austria, based on descent through
female lines from Charles V, for that between France and Spain under
a male descendant of Louis XIV^, which had latterly been Europe's
bugbear.
The cause of this was the inconclusiveness of the Congress of
Cambray (1724-5), the occasion the failui-e to set France and England
against the Emperor. It was becoming clear that Charles VI had no
intention of fulfilling his engagements as to Don Carlos' admitted
eventual rights to Tuscany and Parma. The Grand Duke, Giovanni
Gastone de' Medici, resenting alien interference, upheld the claims of
his sister, the Electress Palatine Maria Anna Louisa, while a party in
the State desired the revival of the Republic on the extinction of the
male line. Siena was held under a different title, since Cosimo I had
received it as a fief of the Spanish Crown. Both Charles VI and Philip V
now claimed its suzerainty. The Duke of Parma was devoted to his niece
Elisabeth, and saw in Carlos the founder of a great Famese State. To
ensiu-e his succession, he prevented his own brother Antonio from
marrying. Thus the Emperor's policy was to encourage the Grand Duke's
resistance to the terms of the Quadruple Alliance, to stimulate Antonio's
matrimonial instincts, and to humiliate Francesco Famese. Pretending
that the eventual investiture granted to Carlos already made Parma an
imperial fief, he levied contributions and marched troops across the State.
On these questions the mediatory Powers leant towards Spain, England
being the more pronounced, because she wished Spanish attention
diverted from Gibraltar, and had a private quarrel with Charles VI over
the Indian trade of his flourishing Ostend Company.
Elisabeth, impatient with the shuttlecocks of the Congress, sent
a clever Sicilian, the Marquis of Monteleone, on a secret mission to
Versailles and London to demand that the Swiss garrisons proposed
at the Congress should at once escort Don Carlos to Italy among his
future subjects. This overstepped the terms of the Quadruple Alliance,
and meant war with Charles VI, to which Bourbon was absolutely op-
posed. England was more ready to take drastic measures, but Elisabeth,
to conciliate her husband, had to combine Spanish with Italian interests,
and requested the fulfilment of the promise to restore Gibraltar. This
was sufficient to make the mission an absurdity, and to court refusal.
The refusal irritated Philip as profoundly as Elisabeth, and " in no
more time than it took to drive from Madrid to the Paido" they
determined to approach the Emperor. The idea was not new; it had
been Alberoni's last suggestion, and under Luis had found favour with
the old Spanish party, at heart devoted to the Habsburgs. The desire
was, at that time, to oust both French and Italian influences by marrying
1715-24] Bipperdd's mission to Vienna. 139
Ferdinand to an Archduchess. On the other hand Francesco Famese,
who engineered the Italian party, had foreseen the necessity of some
such scheme, if France and England refused adequate protection. His
envoy, the Marquis Scotti, was during Luis I's reign sounded by a
certain Ripperdd, and discussed the project with Elisabeth in the
autumn of 1724. Now that she seriously adopted it, her own sons,
Carlos and Philip, aged respectively eight and four, slipped into
Ferdinand's place. The eldest Archduchess, Maria Theresa, was now
seven.
The mission was now entrusted to Jan Willem Ripperdd, a native
of Groningen, but professedly of Castilian origin. Bom a Catholic, he
had become a Protestant to qualify himself for the Dutch public service.
While deputy for his province in the States General he had had com-
munications with Prince Eugene and SinzendoriF. A knowledge of
economics made him of service in the Treaty of Utrecht. Sent as envoy
to Spain in 1715, he subordinated Dutch interests to Spanish. The
States General, highly dissatisfied, recalled him, but he returned to Spain,
was naturalised, and reverted to Catholicism. Alberoni employed him in
commercial matters, and a post in the cloth factory at Guadalajara, in
which Elisabeth was interested, may have brought him to her notice.
Ever since 1721, when he actually wrote to SinzendorfF, his brain was full
of an Austrian alliance. He was now probably chosen because he was
obscure, and could be disavowed, while he had the knowledge of foreign
languages which most Spaniards lacked ; Grimaldo, for instance, could
not easily speak French.
Ripperdd's instructions divide themselves into two sections — those
which regarded the fortunes of Elisabeth's children, and those which
were meant to satisfy Philip and the nation. Carlos should marry Maria
Theresa and ultimately receive the German territories of the Habs-
burgs. He should be educated in Vienna, and in due course be elected
King of the Romans. His present fiarw6e. Mademoiselle de Beaujolais,
might be transferred to his half-brother Ferdinand. For Philip was
intended the second Archduchess with Milan, the Two Sicilies, Tuscany,
and Parma. The Austrian Netherlands should return to Spain, or else
be conferred on Philip with reversion alike of them, Milan, and the Two
Sicilies to Spain, whereas that of Tuscany and Parma should be granted
to Carlos. Charles VI was expected to buy Sardinia from Savoy by a
slice of Milanese territory, and restore it to Philip V, obtaining also
Gibraltar and Minorca from England. Should the Emperor insist on
the indivisibility of his possessions as provided by his Pragmatic Sanction,
Ripperdd might yield, and make sure of the two marriages. The whole
of the Habsburg dominions, with the exception of the Netherlands as a
sop for Phihp, would then pass to Carlos, who, in view of Ferdinand's
weak health, might easily inherit Spain.
The bribe wherewith to tempt the Emperor was the promise of
140 Rupture of the IvfantcCs engagement. [1724-5
Spanish aid against the Turk and the Protestant Princes, the privileges
of the most favoured nation in the Peninsula, and an opening for the
Ostend Company in the Indies. Outstanding disputes relating to the
Golden Fleecej the titles of Charles and Philip, the restoration of the
Emperor's Spanish partisans and the King's Flemish and Italian followers
could be amicably settled. From a matchmaker's standpoint Carlos was
superior to Francis of Lorraine, hitherto intended for Maria Theresa,
especially with regard to Italy. Italy and the Ostend Company were,
indeed, Charles VI's chief interests. The religious motive, moreover,
which had almost disappeared from politics, began to reassert itself.
The projected alliance had a distinctly Catholic complexion ; it had the
Pope's favour, and was intended to result in a Catholic restoration in
England.
The first stage in Ripperdd's mysterious negotiations in Vienna did
not reach far. Of the three members of the Secret Committee, the
two more conservative. Princes Eugene and Starhemberg, were entirely
opposed to the more sensational clauses, and even Sinzendorff, though
deeply interested in the Ostend Company, concurred. Ripperdd could
only extract a guarantee of the terms of the Quadruple Alliance, a
commercial treaty, and a mere defensive alliance, which would free
Austria from isolation, and protect her Italian possessions and her
merchant ships. The Emperor merely promised not to oppose the
restoration of Gibraltar and Minorca by friendly arrangement; as to
the marriages — ^the Spanish Court must rely on his good intentions.
These conditions were despatched by Ripperdd, on March 9, 1725, and
would certainly have been disavowed but for the startling news which
reached the Spanish Coiu:t upon that very day, announcing the return
of the Infanta.
Most good Frenchmen resented the postponement of their King's
marriage. The Infanta was under seven, and her physical development
was slow, whereas Louis was a well-grown youth of fifteen. Strong as
he was, his intemperate passion for hunting occasionally caused violent
illnesses. His death without heirs would open possibilities of civil war.
Bourbon had every reason for alarm. His hated rival, the Duke of
Orleans, was heir presumptive, and his projected marriage with a Princess
of Baden was believed to aim at English and German support. Louis
himself was obviously indifferent to the pretty, prattling child. There
was no time to lose, for Bourbon had promised that the betrothal should
take place when the Infanta was seven. The young King's dangerous illness
in 1725 hastened the decision to break the engagement. Tesse, as being
a personal friend of Philip and Elisabeth, was recalled, and the task of
breaking the news was imposed upon the Abb^ de Livry, a subordinate
diplomat. The King and Queen received him with dignified anger, and
refused his letters. Livry and all French Consuls were ordered to leave
within twenty-four hours. Luis I's widow and her sister were, by way
1125] Alliance of Hanover. — Austro-Spanish alliance. 141
of reprisal, sent home to France. The fabric reared by the Regent fell
with a crash. Troops marched towards the frontier, and the two nations
were on the brink of war.
The rupture with France made the fortune of RipperdA. Philip V
accepted the Austrian proposals: the treaty of peace, the commercial
treaty, and the defensive alliance were signed at Vienna by April 30
and May 1, 1725. The news was received with jubilation in Madrid,
where Frenchmen were stoned in the street. Orendayn was created
Marquis de La Paz, Ripperdi Duke and Grandee of the First Class.
Philip for the first time in twenty years allowed a bull-fight. Yet,
when the terms of the treaties became known, a revulsion of feeling set
in against a convention so one-sided.
Tlie Powers were seriously distm-bed ; they could no longer patronise
the Emperor at the expense of Spain, nor assume the protection of
Spain against the Emperor. English and Dutch merchants saw their
privileges extended to the Emperor's subjects, while the Spanish fleet
was pledged to defend the Ostend Company against their piratical
attacks. Stanhope was assured that the treaties with England would
be respected, if Gibraltar were immediately restored. RipperdA's wild
boasts of Greorge I's dethronement and the dismemberment of France
contributed to the nervous fear of a revived Habsburg predominance. The
result was the Alliance of Hanover (September S, 1725) between France,
England, and Prussia. It was professedly defensive only, but it provided
for the maintenance of the balance of power, threatened by the supposed
engagement of Don Carlos and Maria Theresa.
Nothing could have suited RipperdA better than the Alliance of
Hanover. Austria was isolated, threatened on every frontier; Spain
was her only possible ally. Thus, at length, the Emperor promised that
two of his three daughters should marry Carlos and Philip, and that,
if he himself should die before Maria Theresa became marriageable, she
should wed Carlos. These engagements were embodied in a most secret
treaty, providing in case of war for the conquest by Austria of the
Franco-Belgic provinces, Franche Comt^ the Three Bishoprics, Alsace,
and Strassbm-g, while the Spanish share should be Roussillon, Cerdagne,
and Navarre, together with Gibraltar and Minorca. Austria was pledged
to find the men, and Spain the money. The Imperial Government
greatly disliked the matrimonial clauses; but there were many loopholes.
Charles VI, being young and strong, might easily have a son. Much
might happen before Maria Theresa was of age to marry. An escape,
moreover, was provided by a clause that the whole treaty should be
voided by failure to execute any single item. Meanwhile, Spanish subsidies
would be invaluable for buying support in Germany, and the Ostend
Company was the Emperor's pet plaything. Ripperdd's blatant vulgarity
was only tolerated, because commercial projects were the fashion, and
even Prince Eugene believed him to possess unusual financial knowledge.
142 Austro-Spanish alliance. [i725
The treaty was not so secret but that its contents were soon bruited
abroad— with something beyond its contents, for the English Government
had information that it included a clause for a Stewart restoration, which
was false.
RipperdA left Vienna on November 8, 1725, and hurried, ibooted and
spurred, to the royal presence with his treaty. He persuaded the King
and Queen that the Emperor wished him to be universal Minister.
Grimaldo and Orendayn were elbowed out of office; even the Coimcil of
Castile was thrust into a comer, and grace and justice were in RipperdA's
sole hands. Castelar, the clever Minister of War, and Don Jose de PatiSo,
his yet abler brother, were dislodged on the pretext of missions to Venice
and Brussels. But Grimaldo pressed his hands a little more tightly on
his waist, and Castelar and Patino dawdled over their preparations.
Elisabeth probably hoped to compass her ends by the confusion of a
general war. Ripperdd knew that war was impossible for Spain. He
strove alternately to cajole, bully, and divide the members of the hostile
alliance. Alberoni's schemes for the resuscitation of Spain were revived
as in a nightmare; faint, feverish effiarts were made to fortify the northern
outposts, to raise the army to war strength, to equip a squadron to
protect Havana. A Stewart restoration became an integral part of
Ripperd^'s plans. The Duke of Wharton, with his bottle and his pipe,
was invited to Madrid to reinforce the more respectable Jacobite leaders,
the Duke of Liria, Marshal Berwick's son, and the Duke of Ormond.
Alliance with Russia replaced the hopes which Alberoni had reposed on
Sweden. The presence of Russian ships in Spanish waters caused actual
alarm in England. Ripperdd believed that war would be here unpopular;
but supplies were cheerfully voted ; three squadrons were commissioned,
and before long Admiral Hosier was peaceably blockading the treasure-
fleet in Portobello harbour. In vain the Emperor was urged to invite
the Pretender to the Netherlands, and escort him thence to England.
Charles VI showed no interest in Stewart restoration, and to and fro off
Ostend were cruising the English frigates.
The arrival of the Emperor's ambassador. Marshal Konigsegg, was the
beginning of Ripperdd's end. The Imperial Government was determined
not to fight, but equally resolved to handle the subsidies, which alone
made fighting possible. Konigsegg exposed the falsehood of the promises
which Ripperdi attributed to the Emperor, and discovered the virtual
bankruptcy of Spain. Lying had carried the adventiu:er far in the field
of diplomacy, but was inadequate as a permanent principle of adminis-
tration. There were stormy scenes, in which the handsome, contemptuous
aristocrat had the upper hand. Elisabeth herself fell under Konigsegg's
influence, and she throughout had been Ripperdd's sole support. He was
dismissed suddenly, but kindly, with a pension. Panic-stricken, he took
refuge in the English embassy, where Stanhope read his papers, and
elicited a farrago of facts and fancies. From the embassy he was forcibly
1725-6] Disgrace of Ripperdd. 143
removed, and imprisoned for two years at Segovia, whence a sentimental
maid-servant contrived his escape. He settled later in Morocco, but the
contemporary tales of his adventures, military, political, amorous, and
religious, are now discredited. It is natural to compare Ripperdd with
Alberoni ; but the Dutchman does not stand on the same plane with the
Parmesan, who possessed the real talent for administration which the former
lacked. Alberoni in hours of difficulty was always regretted, but never
Ripperdd. The Italian gardener's son was more of a gentleman than
the Groningen bai-on. It was only upon two women, the Empress and
the Queen, that Ripperdd had imposed.
The fall of Ripperdd was closely followed by that of Bourbon, whose
clumsiness had made the Dutchman's temporary fortune. It never
occurred to Bourbon that it was easier to dismiss the Infanta than to
find a substitute. The essentials were that the princess chosen should
be healthy, well-made, and not too powerful or intelligent to be in-
dependent of Bourbon and his mistress. One hundred marriageable
princesses were scheduled, and then sifted down to seventeen. These
comprised Bourbon's two sisters, two daughters of the Prince of Wales,
two of Peter the Great, a daughter and two nieces of the King of
Prussia, four other Germans, a Modenese, a Portuguese, a Dane, and a
Lorrainer. A further scrutiny was survived by Bourbon's sisters and the
English Princesses only. Fleury warned Bourbon that, if Louis disliked
the selected sister, the failure would be debited to him, and so too the
war which would certainly result from Philip's accentuated anger. Thus
in January, 1726, George I was sounded, the only condition being that his
grand-daughter must become a Catholic. To Bourbon's astonishment,
the English Government was opposed to the conversion of the Princess.
The idea was now ventilated of a confidential mission to Germany to
examine all the Princesses in that nursery garden of Queens. Suddenly,
it occurred to Bourbon to transfer to the King the lady for whom he
had been himself proposing. This was Maria Leszczynska, daughter of
Stanislaus, lately King of Poland, now a French pensioner living the
simplest of lives at Weissembourg. She was twenty-one, and her portrait,
painted for Bourbon, was pleasing. Madame de Prie had sanctioned the
match with Bourbon, because Maria was insignificant. Now, her lover's
marriage would be postponed, and the future Queen would owe her
splendid position to herself. The Council consented, and so, with much
joy, did Stanislaus. Peter the Great's widow then proposed that Louis XV
should marry her daughter Elizabeth, who was beautiful, clever, and
theologically amenable. Both Bourbon and Orleans had previously
rejected her for themselves, as being too low-bom on her mother's side,
and as probably inheriting her father's temper. Russia, indeed, would
support French interests in Poland, Germany, and Italy ; but Bourbon
feared that England would be alienated, and Madame de Prie objected
to so formidable a rival.
144 Marriage of Louis XV. — Fall of Bourbon. [1725-9
Thus the marriage with the Polish Princess, the strangest that French
King ever made, was performed by proxy at Strassburg, and consummated
at Fontainebleau on September 5, 1725. This beggar maid, who brought
no dowry and no political connexion, but merely the certainty of com-
plications in eastern Europe, was the butt for pasquinades ; but her tact
and kindliness were soon to blunt their edge. She justified the main
object of her selection. After bearing three daughters, she gave birth in
1729 to an heir, the father of Louis XVI.
War with Spain was now threatening France, and this was attributed
to Bourbon's blunders. Every act of his government had reflected his
brutality or stupidity. The two planks of its rickety platform had
been fiscalism and ultramontanism. Dubois had at least been economical;
Bourbon and his mistress were more extravagant than Orleans and his
harem, and that too at the State's expense. To meet deficits, Duvemey
had revived the universal income tax of 2 per cent., and had, for the last
time in French history, levied the old feudal due oi joyeux avenement.
The clergy had protested in full session against the breach of their
immunity, the Parlement against registration of financial edicts in a
lit de Justice. Bad hai"vests aggravated discontent. Bread riots broke
out in Normandy ; other provinces were controlled by bands of women
armed with pitchforks, who prevented the levy of the taxes. Paris was
only saved from revolution by extravagant measures for feeding the
populace. Yet the French people was so long-suffering that Bourbon's
government might have lasted indefinitely, had he respectfully treated
the mild old tutor, whose influence over Louis was popularly ascribed to
magic. Bourbon tried to eliminate Fleury, as Orleans had rid himself of
ViUeroi. By a preconcerted arrangement with the Queen he detained
the King from his invariable interview with his tutor. Fleury sent in
his resignation and retired. The King withdrew to the innermost recess
of the palace, and there sat and sulked until a gentleman-in-waiting
ventured to intrude, and suggest that Fleury should be recalled. Bourbon
returned an ungracious message, which proved the signal of his own
dismissal. On June 11, 1726, the King rode out, begging the Minister not
to wait supper for his retiun. Immediately afterwards Bourbon received
an order to retire to Chantilly. His mistress was exiled to her Norman
property, where she shortly died. Duvemey, who had done his best in
an impossible situation, was lodged in the Bastille.
In France, as in Spain, the sudden fall of the First Minister marks
the close of a distinctive period. The provisional administrations of
Orleans and Bourbon were now to be replaced by the long, uniform
ministry of Fleury. In Spain, though the Queen remained throughout
the dominant factor, the reign of foreign adventurers was over. For the
futvire, however wild might be her dreams, their workaday execution was
controlled by normal, national Ministers.
145
CHAPTER V.
THE BOURBON GOVERNMENTS IN FRANCE AND SPAIN. II.
(1727-46.)
The Austro-Spanish Alliance seemed only strengthened by Ripperdd's
disgrace. Stanhope clamoured at the violation of his embassy ; war with
England seemed certain, and Spain must cling to her Imperial ally.
Konigsegg became, wrote Stanhope, the idol of their Catholic Majesties.
Spaniards chafed at his escutcheon, which proclaimed the Emperor's title
to the Spanish Crown, and at his team of mules driven through Madrid in
defiance of the bye-laws. But Elisabeth cared little for Spanish opinion.
For her personal ends she would use the Austrian, as she had used the Italian
and the Dutchman. She had, moreover, never met a personality so im-
posing, so endowed alike with military and diplomatic graces. Konigsegg
became the foimt of honour, while ministers obediently brought their
portfolios to his rooms. Orendayn was merely his instrument. Philip
submitted to the dismissal of Grimaldo, and of his confessor Bermudez,
who had handed him a letter from Fleury behind Elisabeth's back. His
soul was in charge of Father Clarke, formerly Konigsegg's confessor, a
Scottish Jacobite who could scarce speak French ; his body in that of
the Irish Jacobite, Dr Higgins.
In Jacobite circles at Madrid the fall of the Hanoverians was thought
imminent. The Duke of Liria was sent as the first Spanish ambassador
to Russia to arrange a descent upon the English coast. The siege of Gib-
raltar was opened, and the South Sea ship. Prince Frederick, embargoed.
The treasure-fleet slipped past Admiral Wager ; Patiiio was buying and
building ships, and crimping fishermen. Yet war was not declared, and
the trend in Spain was really towards peace. There was disaffection in
Aragon, discontent in the trenches before Gibraltar, disgust at the
subsidies for Austria and at the alien confessor. Patino, knowing Spain's
weakness, was furtively corresponding with Stanhope; the Infant Ferdinand
made no secret of his opposition to the Austrian Alliance. Above all
Charles VI and Prince Eugene were averse from war, for Spain could
give no adequate protection to the Ostend Company, while Eugene had
no belief in the capture of Gibraltar.
C. M. H. VI. OH. V. 10
146 The Preliminaries of Paris. [i727
Bourbon's fall, just four weeks after that of Ripperdd, made re-
conciliation between France and Spain more possible. Early in 1727
Philip V expected Louis XV to die, and he resolved to make a bid for
the succession. He chose as his agent the Abbe Montgon, an amateur
diplomatist, whose pretentious piety had appealed to him during his
retreat at San Ildefonso. Montgon was instructed to win the clergy,
the Parlements, the nobles, and above all the House of Bourbon. He was
ordered not to unbosom himself to Fleury, as being opportunist if
not Orleanist, nor to Morville, Minister for Foreign Affairs, as being
Anglophil. His papers inicluded a proclamation for the Parlement of
Paris, a scheme for a Council of Regency, and for the supervision of the
Queen's possible confinement. Montgon's disguises and mystifications
were worthy of comic opera, but the results had some importance.
Bourbon flung himself into the Legitimist movement against the hated
Orleans succession. Philip's party gained consistency among nobles and
lawyers, and found support with the Marshals, Villars and d'Huxelles.
But the decisive, result was the unexpected. Fleury at the very first
interview picked Montgon's brain. Truly or falsely, he then declared
himself in favour of Philip's succession, and opened a confidential corre-
spondence with Elisabeth. The Queen was assured that the Emperor
never intended his daughters for her sons, and that he was raking up
Imperial pretensions to the Italian duchies. Simultaneously, Fleury
negotiated at Vienna for a general peace, and Charles VI pressed a more
pacific policy on Spain. The siege of Gibraltar made no progress, while
the death-bill daily rose. Elisabeth cooled towards Konigsegg, and Patino
closed the purse-strings, so that the proud ambassador could pay neither
his servants nor his tradesmen. The Emperor agreed to suspend the
Ostend Company for seven years, pending legal enquiry. Spain engaged
to abandon the siege of Gibraltar, restore the Prince Frederick, and
remove the embargo on the cargoes of the treasure-fleet which belonged
to foreign consignees. The Preliminaries were signed at Paris on May 31,
1727, by representatives of France, England, the Emperor, and the
States General. As there was no Spanish minister in France, a duplicate
was executed at Vienna on June 13, here lacking an English signatory.
Hence this compact is called the Preliminaries either of Paris or Vienna.
Elisabeth smarted under her dynastic disappointments and the
humiliating concessions to England. Philip's melancholia was so ob-
stinate that he had appointed her as Regent. Reconciliation with
France was therefore doubly welcome. On the birth of Don Luis,
Louis XV wrote a friendly letter, and she sent a warm reply. Diplomatic
relations were renewed, and the Count of Rothembourg, a strong and
plausible Legitimist, arrived at Madrid. This entailed formal intercourse
with England also. The new envoy was Benjamin Eeene, who, as agent
for the South Sea Company and Consul-General, had fathomed the
peculiarities of Spanish politics. His energies were, however, confined
1721-8] The Congress of Soissons. 147
to solitary walks in the royal garden, for Elisabeth flared up at the very
name of England. She angrily showed Rothembourg George I's letter
promising Gibraltar, sarcastically asking if it were a forgery. The
English people also and their new King, George II, were dangerously
bellicose. Wager cruised off Cadiz, and Hosier was instructed to chase
the galleons. To provide the sinews of war, which at the close of 1727
seemed inevitable, Elisabeth ordered a levy of 25 per cent, on foreign
merchandise in the treasure-fleet. Yet Patino, when asked if Spain's
resources could bear a war, returned a melancholy negative. In Italy
the outlook was unpromising. The Grand Duke of Tuscany intrigued
against the claims of Don Carlos. Antonio Farnese, under Imperial
pressure, abandoned his celibate comforts for marriage with Henrietta
of Modena, in the hope of a successor. It proved impossible to move
Fleury from the English alliance, and thus Spain was isolated at the
moment when Philip was carried to the Pardo desperately ill. Elisabeth
had protested that Gibraltar was her only care, but her Italian interests
won the day. The Convention of the Pardo (March 6, 1728) confirmed
the Preliminaries with trifling modifications. The European Congress
of Soissons could begin its work.
If Preliminaries were tedious, Congresses were leisurely ; they gave
the Powers plenty of time in which to reconsider their position. Fleury's
task was the most difiicult. He was no religious Liberal like Orleans ;
he could not but have visions of a union of the Catholic Powers, of a
lasting peace upon the Continent as the result of reconciliation between
Bourbon and Habsburg, of the consequent revival of French commerce
at the expense of the Maritime Powers. But he saw no element of
permanence in the Spanish- Austrian alliance, which depended on the
caprice or fortunes of Elisabeth. Should the Empress die, and the
Emperor marry again, Elisabeth would have no further interest in the
alliance. Should Philip die or abdicate, and Ferdinand succeed, the
alliance would vanish of itself. A breach between Spain and Austria
could only be a matter of time, and then France must make her choice.
If she chose Austria, Spain with her American trade would be thrown
into the arms of England ; if she selected Spain, there would be a fresh
coalition of the Empire with the Maritime Powers, which had previously
proved too strong for the Bourbon Courts. Fleury therefore elected to
cleave to the alliance of Hanover, and break up that of Spain and
Austria, while honestly striving for European peace.
The situation of England was somewhat simpler. She must re-
capture the Spanish- American trade by peace or war, but the alternative
must be rapidly decided, for she was undergoing the expense of war
without its plunder. There was danger from a coalitioji of Austria,
Russia, Poland, and Prussia, which had early deserted the alliance of
Hanover, or again from a family alliance of the Bourbon Coin:ts. The
growing influence of the new Foreign Minister, Chauvelin, was regarded
r,H. V. 10-2
148 Illness of Philip V and Louis XV. [irss-o
with suspicion, and the British ambassador, Horatio Walpole, had to
throw the whole weight of long-standing influence upon Fleury to keep
him true. The Emperor's chief aim was to enjoy the benefit of time
by postponing a definite answer either on the subject of his daughters'
marriage, or on the succession of Don Carlos to the Italian duchies^
If, meanwhile, fair words could procure Spanish subsidies, so much the
better ; if not, it was Konigsegg's creditors who mainly suffered.
Political problems depended largely upon personal accidents. It
seemed impossible that Philip V should live or recover reason. He had
a mania for abdication, and actually smuggled through to the Council
a letter of renunciation, which Elisabeth was only just in time to recover.
His malady took forms aggressive or absurd. He would scratch his wife,
pommel Patiiio, and bite himself. At one moment he fancied himself a
frog, at another a corpse. Usually the most pious of men, he now had
fits of irreligious mania, rejecting his confessor's ministrations and the
sacrament. Yet if the Queen ventured to talk politics in his presence,
he became inconveniently sane. Envoys and statesmen began to worship
the rising sun in Ferdinand, and Elisabeth wisely gave him his proper
position, which his tact and kindliness deserved. Yet his health was so
bad, and he was so painfully conscious of it, that excessive adulation
was unwise. The progeny of the Parmesan princess was far healthier
than the Savoyard's, and behind the valetudinarian Ferdinand was the
bonny figure of Don Carlos.
While politics seemed to centre in the Spanish sick-room, the pustules
which had troubled Louis XV in the hunt and the Council Chamber
were diagnosed as small-pox. Philip, as usual, assumed that the youth
was going to die. He was now in fancy no longer corpse or frog, but
King of France : in France he could eat, drink, and not be poisoned.
He would march on Toulouse, have himself proclaimed Regent by its
Parlement, and then move on Paris. He empowered Fleury to act in his
name. At Madrid Louis XV was long believed to be dead. Even when
the news of his convalescence arrived, excitement scarcely subsided. But,
after bearing three daughters, Maria Leszczynska was on September 4,
1729, delivered of a son, and the ignis fatuus of Philip's hopes was at
length extinguished.
Less fortunate than the two Kings, the Emperor's youngest daughter
died, and Elisabeth concluded that the remaining sisters would marry her
two eldest sons. Charles VI's scrupulous conscience, however, admitted
the argument that circumstances alter cases, and that arrangements made
for three daughters must be modified in the face of two. Hatred for
the Emperor now replaced Elisabeth's detestation for England. Not the
cession of Gibraltar but the establishment of Don Carlos became the
touchstone. She insisted on Spanish garrisons for the duchies instead
of Swiss. The English Government, to make Gibraltar safe by Italian
concessions which cost it nothing, extorted Fleury's reluctant assent. In
1729-31] Treaties of Seville and Fienna. 149
October Stanhope arrived in Spain ; and on November 9 the Treaty of
Seville was signed. English trade was restored to its former footing,
the privileges of the Ostend Company were cancelled, Gibraltar was
ignored. The succession of Don Carlos was secured by the guarantee of
the allies of Hanover, and the presence of Spanish garrisons. The
Emperor's reply was to pour troops into Italy, and to recall Konigsegg.
Pleury did not intend to fight. He threw away the fruits of the
much desired family reconciliation by irresolution, which was partly
constitutional, partly the growing result of age. To this must be added
the incompatibility of temper between Elisabeth and himself, which
long embarrassed both French and Spanish envoys. Chauvelin, whose
influence was increasing, was resolute enough, but he lacked tact.. His
scheme for a resettlement of Italy, which should exclude Austria, and
establish a balance between Savoy, Venice, the Papacy, and Don Carlos,
was as yet visionary. England, more practical, insisted on immediate
satisfaction for Spain. Tension increased between the Bourbon Courts,
and at length Castelar, sent as envoy extraordinary to Paris, declared
the Treaty of Seville annulled (January, 1731).
For England meanwhile a decisive settlement was essential. In
Spanish-American waters guarda-costas were at open war with con-
trabandists and professedly peaceful English and Anglo-American
merchantmen. Now it was that the Spaniards cut off' the celebrated
ear of Captain Jenkins, and that an English man-of-war had a four
hours' fight to protect its convoy. The boundaries of Georgia and the
encroachment of logwood cutters in Campeachy Bay were also subjects
of angry correspondence. In Spain English merchants and sailors were
subjected to annoyance from the Inquisition, from excisemen, press-gangs,
and quartermasters. Products of English colonies were prohibited, and
new imposts illegally exacted. Ships provisioning Gibraltar were over-
hauled, and works actually commenced against the fortress. Fortunately
Patino was now predominant, and worked in harmony with Keene, who
knew that faults were not all on the Spanish side. But Philip was
dangerously excited about Gibraltar, and Patino professed that he
would sooner face drawn bayonets than broach this topic. England
and France negotiated behind each other's backs both at Seville and
Vienna, but England, thanks to her ambassadors Keene and Thomas
Robinson, was the better served.
The crisis came with Antonio Famese's death. His widow believed
herself to be with child, but diplomatists were sceptical. Charles VI
occupied Parma nominally on behalf of Don Carlos. The Maritime
Powers offered to guarantee his Pragmatic Sanction, and in return he
made the Treaty of Vienna (March 16, 1731), to which Spain in July
acceded. Spanish troops were to be introduced even if the widowed
Duchess' problematical child should be a boy. The Imperial investiture
was to precede possession of the duchies by Don Carlos. Spain confirmed
160 Don Carlos in Italy. [1731-2
the terms of the Quadruple Alliance and of the Treaty of Vienna of
June 7, 1725. Curiously enough the Spanish signatory was the Duke
of Liria, who had left Spain to provoke a Russian attack on England,
It only remained for Don Carlos to take possession. He travelled
by land to Antibes, creating a favourable impression by his expansive
gaiety, his anxiety to learn, his industry in mechanical employments. He
was his mother's son, an Italian and no Spaniard. Elisabeth could not
look at her other children without tears starting to her eyes. He was
welcomed by Admiral Wager, who had escorted the Spanish squadro^A
and the transports which conveyed the much disputed garrisons. Don
Carlos landed at Leghorn on December 7, 1731, at night, and passed
through illuminated streets to the cathedral. In March, 1732, he made
his formal entry into Florence, and was afterwards installed in his
capital of Parma. Fleury professed that, as other people were satisfied,
France was content. The only discordant note in European harmony
proceeded from Pope Clement XII, who declared the installation illegal
and claimed Parma as a lapsed fief.
Elisabeth's set purpose had outlasted two unsuccessful wars. She
had worn down the resistance of the Powers, disregarded the preferences of
her husband, scorned the protests of the Pope. Her aims were personal
— a principality for her son, a possible retreat for her own widowhood.
Yet to her was due the fresh prestige of Spain, which had regained a foot-
hold in Italy, and thereby became once more a European Power. She had
thrown open to the Bourbons the preserves which all French dynasties
had coveted, had thrust an Italian principality between the German
possessions in the north and in the south, with sufficient power to make
itself fresh elbow-room. Everything, wrote the Tuscan historian Galuzzi,
presaged immediate revolution. The medal struck for Don Carlos had
for its device a lady with a lily in her hand, and for its legend Spes
pubUca. For Italians this was an augury of liberation.
From the arrival of Don Carlos in Tuscany until the War of the Polish
Succession Spain seemed to set her sails for every course in turn. The
immediate object of Prance was to gain Spanish support against the
ratification of the Pragmatic Sanction. But Elisabeth bore no gratitude
towards France, nor would she needlessly irritate the Emperor, upon whom
her son's comfort in Italy depended. The mutual aversion between her-
self and Fleury became apparent. To Rothembourg, who asked when
she would cease to abuse the Cardinal, she replied truthfully, "Not
till he is dead." Fleury had no strong leaning towards England; but
the necessity for recuperation and distaste for decisive measures led
him to propitiate the Maritime Powers. Peace was his end and aim;
even later, when harrying the Habsburg in Poland, Germany, and Italy,
he never quite lost his hold on the dogs of war. On the other hand,
Elisabeth's further ambitions could only be realised by war. She scorned
an academic alliance ; she must have a fighting friendship. Both King
1731-3] Spanish capture of Oran. 151
and Queen wished to break up the Treaty of Utrecht and the Quadruple
Alliance, and throw their fragments into the melting-pot. They kept
proposing a close family alliance, annulling all previous treaties up to
and including that of Ryswyk. Such a prospect appalled Fleury, for it
implied cancellation of Philip's renunciations, and consequent war with
Europe. Patiiio himself realised that a family alliance would ultimately
produce a rupture with England, and this he meant to avoid until he
had nursed the navy to maturity.
Philip and Elisabeth were pugnacious, and the atmosphere electrical,
when the Powers were agitated by the gathering of a large Spanish
expeditionary force. Memories of Alberoni suggested Naples and Sicily
as the objective, while English fears centred on Gibraltar and Port
Mahon. The storm broke upon the African coast. Oran was taken by
surprise, and all Spain was jubilant. Moors, however, have a pillow-like
rebound. Aided by warlike Algerians and even Turkish regulars they
swarmed round Oran and Ceuta. Loss of life was great, and among those
killed was the heroic commander, Santa Cruz, the King and Queen's
especial friend, and the mainstay of the pro-English party. It was once
more proved that it was useless to scratch at the North African seaboard.
Doubtless, however, Philip Vs Government, like that of Ferdinand in
1511, meant Africa to be the "jumping-ofF place" for Italy. Spain
mobilised, though not without suspicion, and started the later Italian
war with cadres, military and naval, comparatively complete.
English cannon were imfortunately discovered at Oran, and powder
was shipped by English subjects at Gibraltar to the Moors besieging
Ceuta. This added to the irritation caused by the increasing enterprise
of smugglers, the high-handed measures of English admirals, and the
captious claims of the South Sea Company. Just as the Spanish people
was exasperated with England, Elisabeth was losing patience with the
Emperor. Her son pressed for permission to occupy the duchies while
still under age, and for immediate instead of eventual investiture.
Charles VI, annoyed at the oath to Don Carlos taken by the Florentine
Senate, rudely refused. Upon this Don Carlos made a formal entry into
Parma, and assumed the unauthorised title of Grand Prince of Tuscany.
Elisabeth would at once have allied with France, if she had thought that
France would fight. Her ambitions rose to ideas of Milan for her son,
and Naples and Sicily for Spain. At the close of autumn (1732) the
Bourbon Powers were drawing towards a family alliance. Patiiio strove
to delay it by impossible demands, but was forced to abandon them ;
in January, 1733, Liria was recalled from Vienna. George II then
intervened, and, to please the English King, Charles VI granted the
dispensation of age, and immediate investiture, if Don Carlos would drop
the title of Grand JPrince. Elisabeth was so grateful that peace seemed
assured, when, on February 1, Augustus II of Poland inopportunely died.
The succession to Poland was of absolutely no moment to Spain, and
162 T%e War of the Polish Succession. [1733
of not much more to France. "Must we," plaintively asked Fleury,
"ruin the King to aid his father-in-law?" His hesitation encouraged
Elisabeth to propose the election of one of her own sons. Her real
resolve was, however, to attack the Emperor, if she were convinced that
Fleury meant to go to war for Stanislaus; but this he would not commit
to writing. Another difficulty was her detestation for Charles Emmanuel,
whose house she prophetically regarded as her own descendants' most
dangerous rival. France had already offered him the whole of the
Milanese, on condition that he should cede Savoy to herself; but
Elisabeth insisted that Cremona and Lodi should be given to Don Carlos.
When Charles Emmanuel claimed Mantua as a set-ofF to these, Elisabeth
rejoined that Mantua was the key of Italy and must be in her son's
keeping. This remained the stumbling-block throughout, preventing
any alliance of Spain with Savoy.
In August, 17S3, news reached Paris that Russian troops had entered
Poland, and Stanislaus set out for Warsaw. War was certain, and this
must eventually bring to its slow conclusion a Bourbon family alliance. On
September 26 JFrance signed the Treaty of Turin with Charles Emmanuel,
offensive and defensive as against the Emperor. He was promised the
whole State of Milan, with its boundaries as fixed when Charles V
bestowed it upon his son. Don Carlos should receive Naples, Sicily,
and the curious little State called the Presidi — the Sienese ports which
had been retained by Philip II, when he granted Siena as a Spanish fief
to Cosimo de' Medici. The Spanish Government mistrusted this treaty,
especially as all mention of Mantua was omitted. Philip V refused
assent to Charles Emmanuel's claim to the supreme military command,
while Louis XV declined to regard Spanish captain-generals as equal in
rank to French marshals. A compromise was made by the appointment
of Villars, whose age and prestige gave him an admitted precedence.
France declared war against Charles VI on October 10; and, ten days
later, Philip, though protesting against the Treaty of Turin, gave the
order for embarkation. On November 7 France and Spain signed the
Treaty of the Escurial. The two Kings pledged themselves and their
posterity to eternal friendship. They guaranteed each other's possessions
in Europe and without. To Don Carlos were secured Parma and
Piacenza, the reversion to Tuscany, and, subject to the terms of the
Treaty of Turin, all conquests made in Italy. Louis XV would aid Spain
if attacked by England, and promised his good offices for the restoration
of Gibraltar; the two Powers were mutually to enjoy the commercial
privileges of the most favoured nation, and the abuses of English con-
trabandism in the Indies were to be checked. The Kings engaged not
to negotiate separately on the Pragmatic Sanction, or on the election of
Francis of Lorraine as King of the Romans, or to lay down arms save by
common assent. All previous treaties were annulled, except in relation
to mutual trade — "All earlier treaties made between France and Spain,
1733-4] First Family Compact-Don Carlos conquers Naples. 163
and between their majesties and other Powers, shall no longer have effect
between France and Spain." These few words cancelled the obligations
of the Treaty of Utrecht and all subsequent engagements. This high-
sounding and far-reaching treaty was broken almost as easily as signed,
but it has importance as being the first of the three " Family Compacts."
Meanwhile in Italy war went merrily enough. The old year saw the
Milanese cleared of Austrians, and Villars was in touch with the Spanish
general, Montemar. But the incompleteness of diplomatic unity began
to obtrude itself. The task assigned to Montemar was to guard the
Po, and prevent an Austrian descent by the eastward Alpine passes.
Charles Emmanuel refused to bridge the river, as a means of com-
munication with Montemar, unless the Treaty of Turin were signed.
Montemar was therefore ordered to abandon concerted action, and to
proceed to the conquest of Naples. But for this withdrawal and Charles
Emmanuel's sulks the weak Mantuan garrison must have surrendered, for
exceptionally dry weather had neutralised the protection of the marshes.
Don Carlos and Montemar justified the new Spanish plan of campaign.
Marching southwards in February they obtained right of passage through
the Papal States, and crossed the Neapolitan frontier on March 26, 1734.
Public opinion at once declared itself for Don Carlos. On April 5
Naples tendered its submission: by May 10 all its forts were taken,
and he made his entry. The viceroy, Visconti, left garrisons in Capua
and Gaeta, and withdrew to Bari, hoping to receive reinforcements from
Trieste. But Montemar was on his heels, and on May 25 destroyed his
army at Bitonto. By August Capua, defended by Traun, alone held for
Charles VI. Sicily also clamoured to be free from Austria. Montemar
sailed for Palermo, and Marsillac for Messina. Town and country welcomed
them. Peasantry hemmed in the scattered Austrian detachments, while
the citadels of Messina, Trapani, and Syracuse alone offered serious resist-
ance. Montemar was free to lead his victorious army northwards.
Montemar's departure had reduced the Franco-Sardinian forces to
the defensive. Their duty was to guard the States of Milan and Parma,
and prevent the Austrians from slipping round their right flank to
Ferrara, and thence gaining the great southern high-road. Villars,
indeed, would have advanced to the Adige, blocked the Brenner, and
destroyed Mantua at leisure. In this he was baulked by Charles
Emmanuel's refusal to lend artillery, and his own Government's fear of
a general engagement. Even for the defensive his forces were inadequate.
The Austrians on May 2 crossed the Po near Borgoforte, cut Villars ofl"
from communication with Modena and Ferrara, whence he drew his
supplies, and forced him back on the Oglio. The friction with Charles
Emmanuel became intolerable, and he asked for his recall, leaving Coigni,
an oflicer of only moderate ability, in command. The old Marshal never
saw France again; for, three weeks after leaving the front, he died at
Turin. The Austrian objective was now Parma, for which they twice
154 Campaigns in Lombardy. [1734-5
made a spring. The first attempt was checked by Maillebois near the
ducal palace at Colomo, the second by a hard-won French victory under
the walls of Parma, in which the Austrian general, Mercy, was kiUed
(June 29). Coigni and the King then resolved to drive the Austrians
north of the Po by seizing Borgoforte, but Kdnigsegg, acting with great
dash, siuprised the French camp, and forced Coigni back on Guastalla.
Here on September 19 another French victory was won, as fruitless as
that of Parma. In spite of defeats the strategical superiority was with
the Austrians; MaiUebois had to retire hurriedly from before Mirandola,
and Coigni abandoned the Oglio for the Adda, leaving the territories of
Cremona, Parma, and Piacenza open to the enterprising enemy.
The campaign of 1735 opened with Montemar's appearance in
Lombardy. To prevent his taking command as senior officer to Coigni,
Marshal Noailles, who was also a Captain-General of Spain, was sent to
Italy, Late in May French, Spaniards, and Sardinians, acting at length
in concert, drove the Austrians down the Po, crossed the Mincio and
Adige, and turned the enemy out of Italy. Montemar offered to besiege
Mantua with his Spaniards, if the French and Sardinians, aided by his
cavalry, would cover him from a return of the Austrians. Charles
Emmanuel refused to do anjrthing at all, unless Philip V would sign the
Treaty of Turin. While the Generals were wrangling, the astounding
news arrived that France had signed preliminaries of peace; and Noailles
was ordered to conclude an armistice. So clumsy were the orders that
they did not include the Spaniards. Montemar, on Noailles' advice,
withdrew south of the Po, with the Austrians in piu-suit. He might
have been crushed, had not Noailles stretched his instructions, and
secured his inclusion in the armistice. As it was, he fell back, not
without loss, on Parma — a cruel termination to his brilliant career.
The Spaniards had throughout shown the best military qualities of
the three armies, alike in the field and in the siege and storm of fortresses,
and had been the most effectively supported by their Government. The
French had fought well in defensive actions forced upon them; but their
discipline was bad, and the Spaniards expressed contempt for troops which
spent their time in pulling off women's rings and plundering their allies'
orchards. Villars and Noailles were both checked by diplomacy at home;
but the main cause for comparative failure was the selfish obstinacy of
Charles Emmanuel, who would neither fight a decisive battle nor lend
his artillery for a siege.
On the part of France the War had been half-hearted, disliked by
Fleiu^y, and unpopular with the nation. A low marriage, it was thought,
had dragged the country into needless war. Fleury was disgusted by
his inability to reconcile Spain and Sardinia. He feared that Charles
Emmanuel might be bribed by Milan to change sides and evict the
Bourbons from Italy. Elisabeth was suspected of still hankering after
an archduchess, and of intriguing at Vienna, while the intimacy of
1734-9] PreUminaries of Vienna. 155
Patino and Keene was nervously watched. Elisabeth, half in fun, had
prophesied to Rothembourg the end of the War — "France will have some
check or other, and one fine day we shall be told that you have been
obliged to make peace." The envoy slily replied that European gossip
reported that Charles VI would resort to a daughter's marriage to end
the War. "The old refrain," rejoined Elisabeth; "we are not so keen
for a girl without a dower ; they can be found anywhere."
Though peace came as a surprise, it had been long in the air. In
Febmary, 1735, the Maritime Powers had offered their mediation. Their
main proposal was an exchange between the Emperor and Don Carlos of
Naples and Sicily for Parma, Piacenza, and the reversion to Tuscany. At
this Philip and Elisabeth were deeply offended, and would not hear of
peace. It seemed possible that England might enforce peace by siding
with the Emperor. On occasion of a trifling dispute between Spain and
Portugal an English squadron sailed for Lisbon, while a French fleet
prepared to protect Cadiz. Nevertheless, tension between Prance and
Spain increased. Elisabeth would have none of the French marriages
proposed by Fleury : a scalded cat, she exclaimed, fears cold water. In
despair of reconciling Spain to peace, Fleury negotiated behind her back.
At a very secret conference in the suburbs of Vienna the Preliminaries
were drafted. They corresponded in most respects with the proposals of
the Maritime Powers. The French Government, assuming that Francis
of Lorraine would marry Maria Theresa, and ultimately be elected
Emperor, declared that an Emperor holding Lorraine and Bar would
be a standing menace to French security. It was agreed, therefore, that
Stanislaus, renouncing his claim to Poland, should be indemnified by these
duchies, which should revert to France upon his death. To the Duke
of Lorraine, thus dispossessed, the succession to Tuscany was assigned,
and to the Emperor Parma and Piacenza. The share proposed by the
Maritime Powers for Charles Emmanuel was slightly decreased, and that
of Don Carlos increased. The former should have Tortona and either
Novara or Vigevano instead of both, while the latter should receive the
Presidi in addition to Naples and Sicily. France promised her guarantee
to the Pragmatic Sanction, and on October 3, 1735, the Preliminaries
were signed, to Fleury's unfeigned delight.
Spain acceded in principle to the Preliminaries of Vienna in February,
1736, with less difficulty than had been expected. Yet the ensuing
treaty of November 18, 1738, lacked the assent of both Spain and
Naples, and it was not until June 28, 1739, that they became parties
to it. Even then the guarantee of Charles VI's Pragmatic Sanction
(discussed elsewhere) was withheld. Several causes contributed to this
delay. France and Spain were not wholly fortunate in their respective
envoys. La Mina, who went to Paris in August, 1736, was a known
opponent of French policy, and a scathing critic of French campaigning.
Clever and self-confident, he fought point by point, while his sarcastic
166 Friction between France and Spain. [i736-8
despatches strengthened Spanish resistance by their exposure of Heury's
weakness. He reported moreover that the French Government had an
unduly intimate knowledge of affairs at the Spanish Court. It appeared
that the French ambassador Vaulgrenant was in the habit of entering
the royal apartments when the King and Queen were outj of actually
sitting in the royal chair and rummaging all papers not under lock and
key. He was consequently recalled in April, 1738; but his successor,
Champeaux, a mere commercial agent, made matters worse by forwarding
the most disgraceful libels on Philip and Elisabeth. The new Minister,
La Quadra, was no genius, but he was an expert at opening sealed
letters, and had discovered Champeaux' cypher. Thus, until the
phlegmatic and conciliatory La Marck reached Spain, ambassadors
had been rather a hindrance than a help.
A more prominent rock of offence was the marriage of Don Carlos.
The French Government wished to engage him to a French princess.
But the oldest was scarcely ten, and he was eager for a wife, that within
a year he might have an heir as a Christmas present for his mother.
Elisabeth in vain tried for Maria Theresa's sister, and Don Carlos
then chose Maria Amalia, daughter of the Saxon King of Poland, the
successful rival of Stanislaus. This seemed an intentional insult to the
French Court, and it is surprising that the irritation so soon subsided.
The sweet-tempered Queen, who, on hearing the news, had spoken with
unusual acerbity, at length told La Mina that, though it would be
improper to congratulate, she wished the young couple every happiness.
There was consolation too in the proposals for a marriage between the
Dauphin and the Infanta, on which Fleury had set his heart. The boy
sent a pretty pictiu-e of himself, drawn by his own hand, which won the
heart of the parents as well as of the little girl. The negotiations,
however, were in October, 1737, abandoned, to be resumed a year later.
Another cause of delay had been the death of Patifio on November 3,
1736, followed on February 20, 1737, by the disgrace of Chauvelin. Patino
was succeeded by La Quadra, a mere head-clerk without initiative ; nor
had Chauvelin's substitute, Amelot, much greater push. Fleury's main
wish was to win Austria to peace, and this could only be at the expense
of Spain. The immediate cession of Lorraine to Stanislaus had been a
point of paramount importance, since it was thought dangerous to wait
for its evacuation by the Duke until the Grand Duke of Tuscany should
die. This point was secured; and Francis of Lorraine was pensioned
from March, 1737, till July 9, when Tuscany fell in. It was also of
consequence that the family property within the duchy of Lorraine
should follow the fortunes of the State. This implied a similar absorp-
tion of the allodial possessions of Elisabeth in Parma and Tuscany. Her
very natural opposition to surrendering her patrimony was the main
difficulty in the final conclusion of the Treaty of Vienna.
Peace in Europe gave breathing space for war in American waters —
1737-9] IVouble in American waters. 157
war perhaps inevitable in the end, but which tact and patience might
have indefinitely postponed. The practical grievances on either side
have been already mentioned, but these were not all. Spanish economists,
such as Ulloa and Ustariz, were enamoured of the protective theory,
which was the apparent fountain-head of English and Dutch wealth. Her
exclusive colonial market had been of little use to Spain, when she had
no manufacture and no trade. It was otherwise when, under the nursing
of Alberoni, Patiiio, and Campillo, production and commerce had been
created simultaneously with the instruments of defence. The commercial
privileges contained in the Asiento treaty were a recognition of the
Spanish theory by England for a definite consideration. This con-
sideration was grossly abused, and the Spanish-American ofBcials were
rough-handed in their remedies. The English nation, feeling itself
practically in the wrong, strove to put itself theoretically in the right
by denying the Right of Search — a theory which it was the first to
denounce when against the national interests. Religion came to the aid
of economics, and in the literature of the time Papist and guarda-cosla
were almost convertible terms. But for economic pedantry and public-
house Protestantism the two nations might perhaps not have come to
blows. Smuggling, logwood-cutting, and vague colonial boundaries were
matters of course to those who were practically concerned in them.
Spain had every pretext for a war, and yet she did not want it. It
was not a King's war, nor a nation's war, nor even a Queen's war. On
the English side Robert Walpole at home and Keene in Spain strove
hard for peace. But Walpole's prayer for peace caused the Opposition
to howl for war, and Jenkins became the war-cry of the hour. The
Convention of January, 1739, by which Spain agi-eed to pay an indemnity
less an ofi^-set for damage done to her flieet in the battle of Cape Passaro,
appeared to exorcise the peril. Unfortunately, two questions remained
imsettled. Admiral Haddock's fleet, which had deeply wounded national
pride by cruising oflF southern Spain, was not recalled ; while Philip V
refused to include in the Convention the debt due by the South Sea
Company to himself. The Company had been, as Keene believed, short-
sighted and dishonest from the first ; it now pretended that it was an act
of patriotism to withhold the accounts stipulated by the contract with
the King, who was himself a partner.
Throughout the negotiations preceding the English War Fleury's
policy had been characteristic. He blew on the live coals, and yet wished
to stay a general conflagration. If Spanish attention could be diverted
westwards, Elisabeth might cease to harass him on Italian topics. Thus
he stififened the resistance to England, stimulating La Mina by the sight
of an English map of America with the greater part, so to speak,
coloured red. Yet when war became imminent, he made the sensible
proposal that England should withdraw her fleet from Gibraltar, and
Spain pay the sums agreed. La Marck had successfully negotiated the
158 War between Spain and England. [1739-40
mamage of the Infant Philip with Louise-Elisabeth, which took place
on October 25, 1739. Both Courts wished for a yet closer union ; but,
while Spain was bent on a political alliance for common action against
England, France bargained for a commercial treaty as the quid pro quo.
As monopoly of her markets was the real cause of the English War, Spain
hesitated to open the door to the teeming produce of the French West
Indies. Public opinion in France concerned itself little with commercial
details, and was all in favour of joining hands against the hated English.
La Mina became the most popular man in Paris ; even tradesmen shut
their eyes to the growing length of his accounts. At length the
impulsive soldier presumed too far, and, forcing himself upon Louis,
denounced Fleury's huckstering policy. The impassive King coldly
referred him to his Minister, and La Mina's recall was the result. His
successor, Campo Florido, a subtle, unscrupulous Italian, was better suited
to wheedle concessions out of Fleury. Tlie two Governments came very
near agreement. Fleury declared himself content, if Spain would admit
the sugar and coffee, which were not grown in the Spanish colonies. He
was twitted by Campo Florido with drinking Levantine coffee himself,
and palming off the inferior French article on Spain. At this moment,
to Philip's delight, Fleury ordered a fleet to American waters, not indeed
to attack the English, but to protect Spanish America from unjust
aggression. This generous action was, however, only meant to sweeten
the bitter draught which followed. The French Minister suddenly
declared that both treaties, political and commercial, must be suspended,
lest Bourbon ambition should alarm all Europe. France and Spain
seemed as far as ever from alliance, when on October 20, 1740, at the
close of a week's illness the Emperor died.
Sudden as it was, Charles VI's death found the Spanish Court pre-
pared. Philip at once laid claim to all the hereditary possessions of the
Habsburgs on the plea of an alleged arrangement between Charles V and
Ferdinand; but his real aim was to secure the Italian provinces. Fleury
was implored to plunge into war, or at least to give Spain a free hand
in Italy. Timid by temperament, and irresolute from physical decay,
he was not to be hurried into a definite policy. He had none of the
bellicose humours of the Spanish Court; he would be content if the
Imperial dignity passed from the House of Habsburg. When, at length,
his hand was forced by Frederick IPs attack upon Silesia, his design was
that, as France acted in support of Prussia in Germany, so Spain in her
Italian campaign should combine with Savoy. On this combination,
and on the neutrality of Tuscany, which had been the equivalent for
Lorraine, he continued to insist. But Tuscany was Elisabeth's chief
desire, and she rightly dreaded the aggrandisement of Savoy. Fleury
himself prophesied that one day a King of Sardinia would use all his
power to eject the Bourbons from Italy ; but he thought the Savoyard
alliance indispensable at the present emergency. The interchange of
1740-4] The War of the Austrian Succession. 169
compliments, however, became unusually warm. The new French am-
bassador to Spain, Vaureal, Bishop of Rennes, was the Cardinal's
intimate friend, and Fleury assured him that his attachment for
Elisabeth was lively and tender, though he afterwards refused to
believe that he hsA used such warm expressions.
In view of French hesitation Spain determined to act alone. La
Quadra, now Marquis of Villarias, was supplanted by the more strenuous
Campillo, Patino's best pupil, who absorbed the ministries of Finance,
War, Marine and the Indies, while he poached on the foreign corre-
spondence of Villarijis. The Infant, to whom his father surrendered his
rights in Lombardy, journeyed to Antibes ; and Spanish troops poured
through Languedoc into Provence. Montemar had already in Decem-
ber, 1741, landed a division at Orbitello, where it was joined by the
Neapolitans. Nevertheless the Infant's prospects were not so rosy as
had been his brother's in 1733. Charles Emmanuel had then been a
lukewarm colleague — ^he was now a hesitating enemy, protecting Milan
and Parma for Maria Theresa. In the former war England had been
neutral ; now a Mediterranean war gave a new opening to the sea power,
which she utilised with eflPect.
The naval and military operations of France and Spain belong to
other chapters ; but they are closely interwoven with political relations.
On January 29, 1743, when clouds hung heavily over the Alps, and the
sky in Germany was at its blackest, Fleury died. Within three months
his death was followed by that of his very opposite, the energetic
Campillo. In neither country had these deaths any immediate effect.
Amelot for fifteen months faltered in Fleury's footsteps, while CampiUo
had a worthy successor in Ensenada, who had all the activity of forty
years, and the experience of campaigns in Africa, Naples and Savoy.
The ill-success of the Franco-Spanish arms in Germany and Italy at
length induced Spain to treat for an alliance with Charles Emmanuel.
This seemed in September, 1743, to be practically concluded, when his
treaty with Maria Theresa was suddenly made known. The counterblow
was the Second, and more important, Family Compact of Fontainebleau
(October 25, 1743). This professed to be imperishable ; but, as d'Argen-
son later said, it was the fleeting fruit of ill-temper, and as burdensome to
France as it was impossible of execution. The Infant was to be Duke
of Milan, while Elisabeth should receive Parma and Piacenza for her life.
The only territorial gains for which France stipulated were Exilles and
Fenestrelles, ceded to Savoy by the Treaty of Utrecht. France had
refused to declare war upon England; yet England became the first
objective of the new alliance. In the latter part of 1743, Louis XV
and Philip V made a personal and secret engagement to restore the
Pretender. Troops were drafted to Dunkirk, which the Brest and Roche-
fort squadrons were to convoy to England in January, 1744, without
declaration of war : meanwhile the combined French and Spanish fleets
160 The Second Family Compact. [1743-5
would attack Admiral Mathews from Toulon. Exiles are of all friends
the most embarrassing. Success depended on surprise; yet Charles
Edward, who was persistently dogged by English spies, courted publicity
by leaving Rome for Antibes. England demanded explanations ; Prance,
in reply, ordered Admiral de Court to attack Mathews off Hyeres in
conjunction with the Spanish admiral Navarro. De Court's cowardice
or incompetence left the Spaniards to bear the brunt of a well-fought
but disastrous action, which resulted in a honeymoon quarrel between
France and Spain, the presage of divorce. Public feeling in Spain,
always at heart adverse to France, was dangerously roused, in spite of
the French Government's generous apologies.
Outwardly the Family Compact was in December, 1744!, cemented by
the marriage of the Infanta Maria Theresa to the Dauphin. Yet a
disintegrating force was already in pperation, for the Marquis d'Argenson,
brother of the War Minister, had the portfolio of Foreign Affairs.
Talents, industry and patriotism would have fitted him for constructive
statesmanship, had he not been a philosopher and sentimentalist. He
invented political formulae, and staked their success on the honour of
Charles Emmanuel and Frederick II. Chauvelin's wish for an Italy free of
all barbarians, German or Spanish, was now developed into an Utopian
federation of four monarchies and two republics, and Charles Emmanuel
as its sword and shield. For Spain d'Argenson had intense disdain and
dislike. Elisabeth's chimerical schemes disturbed European peace, and
thwarted his darling project. His prejudices were confirmed by exagge-
rated reports of Spain's military and financial weakness, supplied by
Vaureal who also detested Elisabeth's personality.
French and Spanish generals were acting in greater harmony than
their Governments. The brilliant campaign of 1745 was due to the
adoption of the Spanish plan, and in great measure to the ability of the
Spanish general Gages. In September Parma and Piacenza were won,
and for a few months Elisabeth was actually sovereign of her Italian
home. The Infant then made a triumphal entry into Milan. If only
its huge unwieldy fortress, and the citadel of Alessandria, could be
coaxed or starved into surrender, the aims of the Family Compact were
secured. This was the moment chosen by d'Argenson to realise his
Utopia. Since April he had negotiated with Charles Emmanuel behind
the back of Spain. Her Italian ambitions had become the niain obstacle
to his wholesome desire for peace, for when in September Maria Theresa's
husband was elected Emperor France had no sufficient motive left for
war. Nothing, however, could excuse the manner of his negotiations,
concerted with Louis XV alone, without the knowledge of his colleagues
or of Spain.
Charles Emmanuel was no Utopian, and d'Argenson had to discard
his visionary map of Italy for an unromantic partition of Lombardy^
assigning to the King of Sardinia the duchy of Milan, which the Family
i'745-6] Desertion of Spain by France. 161
Compact had reserved for the Infant. Even these terms were only
wrung from Charles Emmanuel on Christmas night, when the Infant was
actually in Milan, and the citadel of Alessandria on the point of falling.
The condition was an immediate armistice, but, as this could scarcely be
granted without the knowledge of Spain, d'Argenson privately instructed
Maillebois to act purely on the defensive. On January 25, Vaureal
divulged the disgraceful treaty to Philip V, adding that failure to accept
it within two days would entail the withdrawal of the French troops.
It was falsely represented that the overtures had proceeded from Charles
Emmanuel, whereas Louis XV had taken the initiative. Philip V was
righteously indignant. It was easy to show that the situation was far
more favourable than at the date of the Family Compact, and that the
increase of the Sardinian State was more dangerous to both Bourbon
Powers than the retention of part of Lombardy by Austria ; and the
Duke of Huescar was sent as envoy extraordinary to France to remon-
strate against the treaty.
On the day on which Huescar reached Paris d'Argenson granted a
half-hearted armistice which failed to satisfy Charles Emmanuel. He had
concentrated his troops within striking distance, while his enemies were
scattered over a too extended line. He pounced upon Asti, raised the
siege of Alessandria, and forced the Infant to evacuate Milan. A fort-
night in March had lost all the gains of the preceding year. Disaster
convinced Louis XV that he had treated Spain shabbily. He ordered
Maillebois to place himself at the Infant's disposal, while Noailles was
sent to Madrid to undo d'Argenson's machinations, and effect a family
reconciliation. The courteous old nobleman was received by Philip as
a former comrade in arms, an4 clinched success by virulent abuse of
d'Argenson. He returned to France to concert measures for the next
campaign, for which the time indeed was ripe. On June 15 the Infant
attacked the Austrian lines at Piacenza, and was beaten. His mother's
little State was lost by this the last battle of his father's reign. On the
afternoon of July 9, 1746, Philip V broke a blood-vessel, and died.
France had been absolutely ruled for seventeen years by a very old
ecclesiastic of no striking ability, no political experience, and little fixity
of purpose. But there are periods when negative qualities make for
statesmanship, and, indeed, foreigners sometimes regarded Fleury's ad-
ministration as a golden age. The Cardinal was at once hard and soft,
anxious not to offend, but difficult to browbeat or circumvent. More
tenacious of office than of principles, he ought to have resisted royal
pressure in the Polish war, and popular clamour in the Austrian. The
former brought France no credit, the latter little but shame ; but Fleury
had wanted neither. France was in fact impatient of the rest cm-e
which he prescribed, and which she truly needed. Perhaps he allowed
the regime to last too long ; the national fibres became relaxed ; material
C. M. H. VI. CH. v. 11
162 Administration of Fleury. [i726-43
well-being resulted in moral flabbiness, of which coming conflicts were
to give conspicuous proof.
Fleury was unfortunate in living just a few years too long, for his
senile vitality became tiresome. Wonder when a statesman is going to
die merges in the wish that he should do so quickly. His most positive
quality was economy, untainted by avarice. Fleury, wrote Voltaire,
understood nothing whatever about any financial question, but exacted
rigorous economy from subordinate ministers; incapable of being an
office-clerk, he was capable of governing the State. Though he at once
abolished the two per cent, tax and reduced the taille, receipts rose
rapidly. An end was put once for all to the wild fluctuations of the
coinage, which of itself gave stability to commerce. Administration
mainly consisted in doing nothing. This suited the more energetic
elements of France : the larger cities grew apace ; Paris became yearly
wealthier and more luxurious. The colonies, less fidgeted by govern-
ment control than usual, had never been so prosperous ; the wealth of
the French Sugar Islands far surpassed that of other nations' colonies!
A pawerful mercantile marine developed, which was, however, destined
to fall a prey to England, owing to Fleury's lack of interest in the navy.
" There goes the French fleet ! " rudely exclaimed Lord Waldegrave, «is
he watched the pleasure-boats pass under the Parisian bridges.
In the backward provinces, where the people were used to being
drilled, the laissez fakre system had unfortunate results. Prosperity
depended upon local weather. The peasantry were said to be eating
grass in Anjou and Poitou, while elsewhere there was abundance. The
famine in Paris during 1740 and 1741 was discreditable to the Govern-
ment. The transport system collapsed, and grain was double as dear in
Paris as in Languedoc. The temper of the people was, indeed, dangerous
at this time, and Fleury's carriage was mobbed. The Bishop of Chartres
wrote hotly that famine would be followed by plague, which would not
confine itself to the lower orders. A law was passed to send back the
needy poor who were overcrowding Paris to their provincial parishes;
but it was asked how they were to get there, and where live when there.
Fleury's efforts to improve communications took the form of the royal
corvie, which forced the peasantry near the high-roads to employ time,
horses and carts on betterments which profited distant towns, but not
small cultivators who consumed what they grew. Rapid transit injiures
intermediate districts, which live on the traveller's inconveniences.
Of internal events under Fleury's administration the most striking
was the sudden disgrace of Chauvelin, his ablest minister, who was
generally given the credit of the acquisition of Lorraine. His rise had
been equally rapid. The public was surprised when he succeeded
d'Armdnonville as Keeper of the Seals on d'Aguesseau's return to Court.
He at once became Minister of Foreign Affairs, and then Fleury's
adjunct. Henceforward he worked with the King and the Cardinal, or
172C-43] Administration of Fleury. 163
in Pleury's absence with the King. Chauvelin had married a very rich
bowrgeoise ; he knew much about everything, and had boundless energy
and ambition. It was rumoured that, if his wife died, he would take
orders and become a Cardinal, in order to succeed Fleury. He appeared
to be Fleury's alter ego; together they had taken part in every step
which led to the Peace of Vienna ; his disgrace in February, 1787, was a
mystery which has never been explained.
If Chauvelin was guilty of any actual fault, it probably consisted in
secret negotiations with Spain, encouraging resistance to Fleury's peace
policy, from which his own views were gradually diverging- He was
harking back to the traditions of Louis XIV's reign, to hostility with
Austria and England, and consequent friendship with Spain, whereas
Fleury's desire for peace insensibly led him towards the policy of the
Regency. It was rumoured that the Emperor and England pressed
for Chauvelin's removal. Personal reasons no doubt contributed. The
Minister was unmannerly to subordinates, and his colleagues hated him.
His strident voice and vulgar laugh were disagreeable to the King.
Fleury himself, tenacious of the power which he could no longer efficiently
wield, was jealous of the one Minister of sufficient calibre to succeed him.
In the ensuing war Chauvelin's capacity was greatly missed; but on
Fleury's death he ruined his chance of restoration by presenting to
Louis XV a scathing criticism of the Cardinal's administration.
A contrast to the sudden split with Chauvelin was Fleury's dragging
dispute with the Parlement, which originated in the Jansenist con-
troversy. After Bourbon's fall the persecution of Huguenots slackened.
They could only be politically dangerous in a war affecting southern
France. In the War of the Austrian Succession Fleury expressed some
nervousness as to this, giving it as a reason for non-intervention in Italy.
The Jansenists were a source of peril much nearer home. Whole Parisian
parishes, the backbone of Ultramontanism in the Wars of Religion, were
now Jansenist from the priests downwards, and hostile to the Govern-
ment which accepted the Bull Unigenitus. Some of the nobility and
most of the wealthy bourgeoisie were covert or overt Jansenists. The
party had ample funds, and its charities nursed political support.
In the Parlement a large majority was, if not Jansenist, Erastian,
and opposed to the Government's Ultramontanism. The quarrel, taking
shape in 1730, reached its climax in 1732. The original combatants
were the Parlement and the Ultramontane Bishops, who found support
in the Council, and finally in the King. The Government signally failed
to win the Advocates, but somewhat weakened the solidarity between
the senior members who constituted the Grande Chambre, and the hot-
blooded juniors of the Enquites and Reqtietes. Nevertheless the Parlement
showed exemplary courage in face of the pettish violence of the Crown.
In August, 1732, Louis XV withdrew from it the Appel comme cCdbm,
the most effective weapon of the State against church encroachment.
OH. V. 11 — 2
164 Character of Louis XV. [i7i7-43
Three-fourths of the Enquites and Requites were exiled to the four
quarters of France. Then Fleury, frightened at his own audacity, showed
the white feather. The order was suspended, the exiles reinstated. For
once the lawyers won a notable victory, and it was well deserved.
\[ Society imder Louis XV lacked a centre, for there was virtually no
Court. The King, ever restless, wandered round from Versailles to his
hunting lodges, or the luxurious house of his greatest friend, the Countess
of Toulouse, at RambouiUet. His life was absolutely idle, devoted at
first to his dogs and horses, and afterwards shared by them and his
mistresses. He had been carefully brought up after an external, Pharisaic
fashion : his confessions were written out, and corrected by Fleury, as if
they were exercises. " The young King," wrote Madame in 1717, " has
a nice feice and plenty of sense, but is a bad-hearted child. He loves
nobody except his old governess, takes dislike to people without any
reason whatever, and already likes to say biting things." "They let
him do everything," she elsewhere writes, "for fear he should fall ill;
I am convinced that, if he were punished, he would not fly into such
passions." Louis retained his fear of Hell, and, absolute as he became,
never regarded himself as having a divine right to sin. He would
gloomily refer to rheumatism in his arm as a befitting reminder of his
adultery, and was morbidly disturbed by deaths. On public occasions
the silent, impassive youth gave the impression of stupidity. His
abilities, however, were good. He was a mathematician and mechanician,
and even in state affairs had sound judgment. In intimate society he
was talkative and amusing, and wrote scurrilous chansons with the worst.
This love for friendly, natural society led to the abandonment of state
functions, to the elaboration of petits appartemens, and to the long, late
suppers, where champagne loosed his tongue.
The craving for amusement probably caused Louis XVs first lapses
into the sensuality which later became a habit. The Queen, with all
her pretty little accomplishments and love for anecdotes, was not
amusing. Neither of the two sisters, Madame de Mailly and Madame
de Vintimille, who were the King's first mistresses, was young or pretty ;
but both were gay and conjpanionable. Contemporaries seem agreed
that Louis was pushed into the first connexion, partly perhaps for
political reasons. The Countess of Toulouse, herself virtuous, and the
best of his friends, is credited with this intrigue. No one foresaw the
horrible future ; the public was disposed to approve, thinking that Louis
might become less a wild man of the woods, and be weaned from the
excessive exercise which had more than once endangered his life. Even
Fleury is said to have welcomed Madame de Mailly, but was horrified at
the extension of the King's aflfections to two, if not three, younger sisters.
He had, however, indulged his pupil so long that he had lost the practice
of contradiction and reproach. He did not even persuade Louis to
behave with decency towards his Queen; Madame de Pompadour first
taught him the externals of gentlemanly behaviour.
1726-43] French society under Louis XV, 165
There were still respectable circles in high places, such as those of
the Dukes of Noailles and Luynes ; but general society leaves an impres-
sion of vulgar decadence. The abuses in the faster set are peculiarly
modem. A young married Prince of the Blood vies with a middle-aged
Dutch Jew for the favours of an opera-singer. A Duke of Nevers
marries a comedy actress, lately mistress of an elderly financier. Ladies
of rank make passionate love to the tenor of the season. Enormous
fortimes made by doubtful means facilitated intermarriage between blue
blood and the underbred. A successful speculator's widow was besieged
by young sprigs of nobility. The banquets of parvenu millionaires
formed the model for those of royalty itself. Decadence was far from
delicate, for the best society was often drunk. Everyone strove to be
amusing, and, to judge from the rage for tediously indecent chansons,
usually failed. Even Montesquieu first made his reputation by frivolities.
The prevaihng degeneracy early affected the army. "That French
nobility and soldiery," said Philip V to Tesse in 1724, " which formerly
made war on Europe, seems now the captive of the young ladies of the
opera, of the soft life of music and good cheer." One noble colonel
led his men to steal a neighbouring regiment's flag ; another outraged
a lady's-maid, because her mistress had refused to bow to his hostess.
Ugly stories came back from the Italian war, and Frederick II described
the French troops under Maillebois by an unprintable dissyllable.
To Uterature the social and intellectual laissez Jaire was probably
beneficial, encouraging the development of the divergent talents of
Voltaire and Montesquieu, of Rousseau and Diderot. The contrast
with contemporary Spain is curious. Here intellectual activity followed
the French models of half a century before, taking corporate and not indi-
vidualistic shapes. It was the age of cooperative intellectual labour, of the
Spanish Academy and its Dictionary, the Royal Academy of History, the
Academy of Medicine. In literature, as in foreign policy and constitutional
machinery, Philip Vs Spain looked backwards to Louis XIV's France.
Philip Vs reign to the end was really that of Elisabeth, and the
comparison must lie not between Louis XV and his uncle, but between
Fleury and the Queen, between the inexperienced priest and the half-
educated woman, the gentle old humourist and the vivacious termagant.
The advantage was not whoUy on Pleury's side. Elisabeth knew what
she wanted, and got much of it. Spaniards disliked herself and her
policy, but she nevertheless acted as a disagreeable tonic to the nation,
imparting the vigour which France lamentably lacked. Spain created a
fleet which was not afraid to fight the English ; her infantry, wrote a
French agent, was inadequately clothed, but its spirit was higher than
that of other armies. In the field the Spaniards were well led by
Montemar, La Mina, and above all by the Walloon Gages, the ablest
officer who fought in either of the Italian wars. Nor must Eslava, the
gallant defender of Cartagena de las Indias in 1741, be forgotten.
166 The successors of Alberoni. [1726-46
Elisabeth is usually too exclusively associated with the adventurous
careers of Alberoni and Ripperdd. These Ministers only covered the
twelve first years of her reign, before she had gained political experience.
During the last twenty years the regime of the foreigner and the
adventurer is over. It may be said that Alberoni was her master,
Patino her collaborator, while, after his death, she was mistress. The
administration of Spain by Spaniards began with Patino. Though he
was bom in Milan and educated in Italy, he was of Spanish extraction,
and his interests were Spanish. Keene was right in saying that his
death left a gap difficult to fill, and Elisabeth knew it. La Quadra was
only her chief clerk, but an excellent specimen of his class, honest,
faithful, sensible, and industrious. Her good heart regretted the ne-
cessity of his displacement ; but when the storm arose she had to choose
a more skilful pilot in Campillo, and, after his early death, in Ensenada,
the two best of Patirio's pupils. These three statesmen were no mere
politicians, but administrators with practical knowledge of military and
naval organisation, of finance and provincial government. Thus they
had real creative power, and compare favourably with other European
ministers. To Elisabeth is due the credit of their appointment. She
•supported Patino even against her husband, who so hated him that he
drew a curtain whenever the Minister came to transact business. In
diplomacy Castelar, Montijo, La Mina, and Campo Florido were all on
a level with the abler diplomatists of the day.
Philip Vs Court, as that of Louis XV, was never the centre of society.
For four years, indeed, its seat was in southern Spain. The immediate
occasion of removal was the double marriage of Ferdinand and his sister
with Barbara and Joseph of Portugal. After the wedding ceremonies
at Badajoz in January, 1729, Seville became the King's headquarters,
whence a long visit was paid to Granada, and frequent excursions were
made to Cadiz. Madrid, which had no trade, became " little more than
a corpse " ; but Cadiz, under Patino's stirring influence, was really the
centre of what life there was in Spain. Philip's health showed little
improvement. Either he would only give himself and his wife three
hours of rest, or else he lay in bed for weeks, his eyes fixed, his finger in
his mouth, or his lips moving vehemently, but without sound. Often he
refused to be shaved, to have his hair brushed, or his nails cut. He
wore his trousers till they dropped off; when his valet tired of mending
them, he would borrow silk from his wife's maids, and essay the task
himself. Fits of violence were not uncommon. Once, when the Duke of
Arco tried to save Elisabeth from Philip's fists, the King threw the
gallant soldier to the ground.
Augustus IPs death had a most healthful effect on Philip. The
Court moved northwards, and life at Aranjuez and San Ildefonso resumed
a more or less normal course. Elisabeth, whose figure began to unfit
her for active exercise, provided indoor amusements, making her children
1726-46] PMUp V and Elisabeth. 167
act drawing-room plays, and curing Philip of his dislike for music by the
importation of Farinelli. For some three-thousand nights this incom-
parable falsetto sang the same five songs to the infatuated King, who
howled them after him song by song, or repeated the whole selection till
the small hours. On the whole Philip was never so much master of him-
self as in his last five years ; during the crisis of the Franco-Sardinian treaty
(January, 1746), he played, perhaps for the first time, the leading part.
Elisabeth's character never changed. She outlived Philip by twenty
years, and till the end the quality which visitors ascribed to her
was vivacity. Her reputation unfortunately rests mainly on the full
despatches of French ambassadors. Noailles complained that the fault
of all French envoys was their ignorance of Spain — it may be added, of
the Italian character. Thus it is that Keene on the one hand and the
Venetian ambassadors on the other are often the safer guides. Elisabeth
was a thorough Italian, practical, material, and natural. She had the
passionate family sentiment of the Italians — ^"You would get impatient,"
she cried to the professedly celibate Bishop of Rennes, " if you had a
large family to provide for." She thought that she ought to have
everything that she desired, and that this everything was possible. The
defects of her early education could never be corrected. Sitting on a
stool the livelong day in front of her husband's armchair, she could
only pick up knowledge at random from ministers and ambassadors.
She acted on impulse rather than reason, but impulse sometimes possesses
a spirit of divination. In both the wars of Polish and Austrian Succes-
sion she prophesied that French professions of eternal friendship would
end in the secret surrender of Spanish interests. She divined truly that
the Savoyard and not the Austrian was to be the real enemy of the
Italian Bourbons. In foreseeing that the Savoyard dynasty, then hated
by all Italy ahke, would one day become the national leader, d'Argenson
was more prophetic.
Elisabeth's career must be misjudged if viewed from a solely Spanish,
and not Italo-Spanish, standpoint. In wresting Italian provinces from
Spain the Treaty of Utrecht had dealt less hardly with Spain than with
Italy. The evils of Austrian domination were indisputable, and Mon-
tesquieu stated in 1729 that Spanish reoccupation was the only remedy.
To put her own Italian children in the place of the foreigner was no
ignoble ambition for an Italian mother. The enthusiastic welcome of
Don Carlos in Naples and Sicily, and of Don Philip in Parma and
Milan, proved that her efibrts were appreciated. Tuscany bitterly
resented its alienation to Lorraine. Even for Spain, if she was ever
to be more than a mere peninsular power, this renewed connexion
with Italy ofiered prospects. It was, after all, a return to the policy
of her cleverest and most successful King, Ferdinand the Cathohc.
168
CHAPTER VI.
FINANCIAL EXPERIMENTS AND
COLONIAL DEVELOPMENT.
The intensity of national rivalries in the seventeenth century stimu-
lated enquiry into the foundations of national power. It was easy to
see that behind power lay wealth; and, though the time was not then
ripe for a systematic study of "the nature and causes of the wealth
of nations," economic writers already argued that wealth depended on
numbers of people, their continuous employment, and an influx of
treasure to give life to industry. Thus it was that the competition for
commerce, by means of which the raw materials of many industries were
obtained, their finished products exchanged, and supplies of the precious
metals procured, and for colonies, with the commerce to which they gave
birth, waxed keener and keener, and contributed to cause the long War
of the Spanish Succession. That War marked only one stage in a
struggle for commercial and colonial opportunities prolonged throughout
the century; but it bequeathed to England and France a heritage of
financial problems, in the solution of which both countries ventured
on daring experiments, and encountered immense disasters. The story
of these experiments forms an episode, though, in some respects, an
isolated episode, in colonial history; for, while they had their root in,
and drew their character from, the ambitions and theories which governed
commercial and colonial policy, their influence on the course of events
was not commensurate with their intrinsic interest, nor with the re-
sounding effects which their failure at the moment produced.
In 1715 France, with her rich resources, seemed on the brink of ruin.
Since the death of Colbert the standing debt had been increased to a
gigantic height. By its side was a huge floating debt. The Government
was without credit; it raised loans only at a ruinous cost; its promissory
notes, billets cTHat, circulated at a quarter of their face value, and much
revenue was pledged for two years ahead. Agriculture, commerce, and
industry struggled beneath usurious rates of interest and the accumu-
lating burden of taxation. Recovery along the traditional lines of
French finance opened a long and dreary vista. In the circumstances,
leTi-iTie] John Law. 169
bankruptcy was boldly proposed as a royal road to solvency, but from
considerations of honesty and policy was reluctantly rejected, and more
defensible, though scarcely less arbitrary, means were adopted, to deprive
the financiers who had battened on the necessities of the State of a part
of their ill-gotten gains. But such measures did not increase a declining
revenue, nor facilitate the raising of funds by an embarrassed Govern-
ment ; and France cried out for a great statesman to give her relief.
There was one man whom the situation did not appal, but who saw
in it the opportunity of realising a life's ambition, and of putting to
the test certain theories of national wealth and progress which he had
developed into a system. This was the celebrated John Law, already
well known to the Regent Orleans and to the principal Courts of Europe
for his personal attractions, brilliant intellect, and mastery of finance.
The son of a goldsmith in Edinburgh, he had gained an experience of
banking in his father's business, which he had much enlarged by a study
of the banks of London, Amsterdam, and Genoa. Calculation was to him
an absorbing passion, and though he had lived a roving life, and was
said to have built up a fortune by gambling and speculation, he was far
from being a mere adventurer. Ambitious, sanguine and disinterested,
with a clear and penetrating mind, and a grasp of economic principles
far in advance of his time, he longed to give his theories a practical
application, believing that he had found a secret more potent in its
influence on the destinies of nations than the discovery of the Indies
with all their silver and gold. But conservative and impoverished Courts
would not stake their fortunes on his principles. In vain he appealed to
the Emperor, the Duke of Savoy, the Parliament of Scotland, the English
Government, the Ministers of Louis XIV. His overtures were always
refused. For years he watched the downward course of France, until,
the accession of his friend the Duke of Orleans to the Regency seeming
to open a new opportunity, he hurried to Paris to offer his services to the
French Government and people. His ardent mind bridged with a single
idea the gulf between national bankruptcy and prosperity ; and, imder
the guidance of his System, he believed that France might mount at one
bound to such a preeminence of wealth and power in Europe as no
nation had ever possessed.
Economics, or at least finance, he maintained, was a science, resting
on fundamental principles, and capable of supporting a coherent system
of policy. The troubles of France were due to financial mismanagement,
to the unscientific policy pursued. France had all the resources of wealth
and power — a favourable geographical position, fertile soil, pleasant
climate, an industrious and Jictive population — and her prosperity ought
to be apparent in the increasing numbers of her people, in magazines
well stocked with home and foreign goods, and in the cheerfulness,
courage, and good nurture of her working classes. But France had
neglected her industry and trade, on which population and commodities
170 Law's financial and commercial ideas. [1700-20
depended. Now, he argued (and here we reach the point of departure
of the System), " trade depends on money." What the blood is to the
body, that, he believed, money is to the State, the animating force which
gives life and vigour to every part. "The best law without money
cannot employ the people, improve the product, or advance manufacture
and trade." The first difficulty, then, to be overcome in the economic
regeneration of France was " the great scarcity of money " ; and the
centre of the problem was to adopt such a kind of money that the supply
could easily be equalised with the demand. In this respect the precious
metals failed, for, in spite of their many useful qualities, they were too
difficult and costly to procure. Banks had been " the best method yet
practised for the increase of money," since by the circulation of their
credit they had multiplied money on a basis of gold and silver. But
while they suggested a solution, they had not attained it. The industries
of a country demanded more money than any bank yet established had
been able, to supply. Banks must therefore work on new principles; and
in his proposals to the Scottish Parliament, Law had suggested that the
banks should issue notes secured, not on the precious metals, but on land.
He did not suppose that indefinite quantities of money coidd be circu-
lated, or that the mere increase of money was in itself an enrichment of
a country; but he believed that, in most countries at the time, and
particularly in France, the supply of money was much less than the
demand or need for it, and very much less than the demand would be if
trade and industry revived. He appears also to have believed that an
inconvertible paper-money would circulate, so soon as the people became
familiarised with the conveniences of paper, provided that it were not
over-issued ; and, if this paper were supplied by the King on his credit,
he was confident that it would not be over-issued, because the King
would never be so unwise as to ruin his own credit and destroy the
prosperity he was creating. Hence he concluded that paper, or, in other
words, credit — the credit of the State — could serve as money. At the
centre of affairs, under the royal control, would be a great state bank,
drawing into itself all the specie in the country, and supplying credit
money — symbols of transmission — which were all that was required
in commerce and indiistry, in far greater quantities than the specie
received; increasing or diminishing the quantity as circumstances dictated;
in its sovereign wisdom never over-issuing ; and thus satisfying without
trouble and cost the great need of money in accordance with the sure
principle of equalising demand and supply. No longer, then, would
money be withdrawn from circulation and hoarded. Who would hoard
paper ? Who would need to hoard when scarcity of money was never to
be feared ? But what if the people were reluctant to use state notes in
the place of gold and silver.? On this problem Law's views oscillated.
In 1716 confidence was a plant of slow growth, and the acceptance of the
notes must be voluntary. In 1720 circumstances, and with them his
1700-20] Law's- financial and commercial ideas. l7l
opinions, had changed ; the King must use his absolute power to compel
the circulation of the notes ; legal compulsion created confidence.
To ensure a supply of money proportionate to the demands of
industry was perhaps Law's dominant idea; but, beyond this, the System
involved far-reaching changes in the economic organisation of the State.
Law conceived of the nation as a whole, whose members, though rendering
different services and holding different stations, ought to have a common
interest in the national prosperity. But, looking round, he saw on all
sides class struggling against class, and no consciousness of a common
interest. He saw a Government that burdened the people with oppressive
taxation, and shackled industry with needless restriction, to the detriment
of its own and its subjects' revenues ; a class of capitalists whose gains
depended on the distresses of their country, who stifled commerce with
usurious interest; an official hierarchy, ridiculously large, doubling the
weight of taxation by their numbers and their corruption; many small
companies struggling with inadequate capital to hold their own in the
competition of foreign commerce; a labouring class, "the more necessary
part" of the State, unemployed and poverty-stricken. Was it impossible
to create a conception of a united interest and compel all to serve it .''
Could not the national forces be combined, and the striving of individual
men and classes be laid to rest, in some great scheme of cooperation,
some giant consolidation of existing enterprises, which, without destroying
individual activity in certain spheres, would unite competing groups and
provide the strength for vaster undertakings? Law believed that the
System could achieve this. A company could be formed to which the
Government should grant all the commercial and financial privileges
then farmed by various bodies; in which the creditors of the State
should receive shares in exchange for their debts; and in which the
public should be induced to invest their savings. The one great
organisation would control the foreign commerce of France, develop the
magnificent resources of her colonial empire, reorganise her fiscal system,
and, if necessary, exercise a controlling influence on domestic producers ;
by consolidation with the state bank it would unite the money and
trading powers, so that the stream of money should flow straight into
the fields of commerce; by swallowing up all existing associations, and
thus engrossing aU large capitals and sources of revenue, it would enable
the French nation to trade as a unit, and " compel all subjects to find
their fortunes only in the happiness and opulence of the whole kingdom."
Thus would be reared a giant trust, broad-based as France, wide-reaching
as the realms of commerce and finance. No foreign rival could withstand
such an institution, and English and Dutch would be swept from the
seas. Within the State the old conditions would be completely trans-
formed. Jarring interests would be harmonised, for all would be
concerned in the general prosperity. No more would the nation lie
stricken at the feet of the money-lender, whose power would be abased.
172 Foundation of the Bank. [i7i6-7
The Government, so far from living by loans, would find abundant
means in the growing wealth of the coimtry, and would itself finance
industry and develop the resources of France. The standing debt would
be abolished, and the capitalist, instead of preying on his country, would
look to the gains of commerce for his reward. No more would there
be unemployment, for usury would be extinguished and industry and
commerce would not be starved for want of capital. Restrictions on
industry would be removed and the fiscal administration remodelled.
The nobility would be lifted out of the morass of debt in which they
were involved, and the peasantry, instead of being impoverished by
taxation and unemployment, would profit by a reviving agriculture
and lighter burdens. Thus, with abundance of money, a reorganised
commerce, interests harmonised, a united France would become "the
mistress of commerce and the arbiter of Europe." Such was the glowing
vision which Law conjured up.
The foundations of the System were laid with difficulty. The Regent,
though convinced himself that Law's proposals were practicable, was not
strong enough to secure their immediate acceptance^ The Council,
advised by leading merchants and financiers, disliked experiment and
distrusted Law. Facile and persuasive, he argued his case in memoranda
and letters, and modified his scheme until he asked simply permission to
establish at his own risk a bank, to be worked on the strictest lines,
confident that it would succeed, and prove the starting-point of the
mighty financial revolution he designed. Founded in May, 1716, as a
bank of discount and deposit, with the right to issue notes, the Bank
quickly achieved a conspicuous success. Its notes were welcomed, for
they were payable on demand, and represented not the livre toumois,
whose value was liable to sudden fluctuation, but a fixed weight of gold.
Its recognised utility enabled the Regent to extend its privileges. In
April, 1717, its notes were made receivable for taxes, and the provincial
collectors, much against their will, were ordered to use them in making
their remittances to Paris.
Law's second creation was a commercial company. In the last quarter
of the seventeenth century intrepid adventurers marked out in North
America a new sphere for French enterprise, the great central basin of
the continent watered by the Mississippi. An influential merchant,
Antoine Crozat, enjoyed in 1717 the monopoly of its commerce, with
little profit to himself or the country. Law's genius perceived that
this great region must be capable of immense development; and he
asked and obtained permission to take over Crozat's monopoly, and to
float a company for the commerce and colonisation of Louisiana. Thus,
in August, 1717, the Company of the West came into being, endowed
with liberal privileges, and possessing a nominal capital of a hundred
million livres. But France had seen too many schemes of colonisation
bear no fruit, to regard with enthusiasm an enterprise over which the
171V-20] The Company of the West. 173
past history of Louisiana, and of other commercial companies favoured
with state patronage cast a shadow of doubt. Moreover, the capital,
like the capital of the bank, was subscribed in Mllets d^Hat, and was
thus invested, not in Louisiana, but in the state debt, leaving only the
interest available for use. None the less, Law could congratulate himself
on the success he had achieved. The two great organs of the System,
the Bank and the Company, had been established — it remained only to
extend their functions and influence until they fulfilled the promises he
had made and achieved the regeneration of France.
In 1718 the Parkment, always the enemy of the System, after a
severe struggle with the Regent, in the course of which it attacked both
the Bank and Law, suflFered defeat and humiliation, and the way was
thrown open for fresh advances. In December the Bank was made a
royal bank, and its notes became legal tender throughout the kingdom,
though from this time they represented only current coin. Their
circulation, continually growing with experience of their utility and
confidence in their value, was now quickened by the voice of the law.
Gold and notes alone, which meant in practice chiefly notes, were hence-
forth to be used in large payments ; and, in expectation of the increased
demand for notes, branches of the Bank were established in five of the
principal towns. Thus the acceptability of the notes was diminished,
while at the same time new facilities were opened for multiplying the
quantity, since the dangerous power of creating money rested virtually
in the hands of the Regent.
The extension of the Company next occupied the mind of Law. It
was necessary to enlarge its operations and increase its profits, in order
to attract the capital of the investor. The manufacture and sale of
tobacco was a state farm, whose term was just expiring. It was obviously
of advantage to the Company to acquire a monopoly which would benefit
its colonial plantations ; and Law accordingly offered more than double
the two million livres which had previously been paid. He followed this
up in December, 1718, by purchasing the privileges and property of the
Company of Senegal. These measures exercised a stimulating influence on
the fortimes of the Company whose shares began to rise. The following
year Law prepared for vaster operations. In May, the East India
Company and its off-shoot the China Company, neither of which was
prospering, and in July, the Company of Africa, which traded with the
Barbary States, yielded up their rights to the Company of the West,
which henceforward took the name of the Company of the Indies. In
1720, the last two independent commercial associations, the Company
of San Domingo and the Guinea Company, shared the same destiny.
In order to take advantage of the opportunities thus multiplied,
the Company required to raise new capital. The public, which had
neglected the Company of the West, had been profoundly impressed
by the great transactions which had brought into being the Company
174 The Company of the Indies. [i7i9
of the Indies. Law was thus able to issue 50,000 shares of 500 livres
each, at a premium of 50 livres, and to add the condition that four of
the original shares of the Company of the West, called meres, must be
presented in purchasing a JiUe, or share in the Company of the Indies.
As subscriptions were payable in twenty monthly instalments, a great
impetus was given to speculation, for which an unrestricted issue of notes
gave every facility; and the price of the shares mounted with great
rapidity. In July (1719) the Company bought the right of coinage for
nine years — a profitable right for which fifty million livres was promised.
Another issue of 50,000 shares, petites Jilles, followed this new bargain.
The price was 1000 livres, the price of the existing shares, and four
mh-es and onejille had to be presented by each subscriber for a. petite
fille. At the same time Law boldly announced that from the beginning
of 1720 two dividends of 6 per cent, would be paid annually. The
promise fed the fires of speculation ; though it was very doubtful whether
the tobacco monopoly, the profits of the mint and of commerce, and the
interest payable by the State could yield the sum that would be required.
Law, however, had other sources of revenue in view. The farms of the
indirect taxes were in the hands of the brothers Paris, powerful financiers,
who, copying Law's methods, had organised a company known as the
Anti-System, which proved a formidable rival of the Company of the
Indies. In August, 1719, Law, outbidding the Anti-System, secured
these farms for fifty-two million livres a year, and struck down his
opponents. To them were added the general receipts from direct
taxation, hitherto collected by Receivers-General in each generality, so
that the whole fiscal administration was united under a single control.
The reforms that followed cannot be particularised here, but they con-
stitute one of the chief triumphs of the System. No sub-farms were
created; taxation was simplified, and some oppressive taxes removed J
the Receivers-General were abolished ; and by various measures greater
order, unity, and economy were introduced into this branch of government.
It was in return for these last concessions that Law attempted the
greatest of his financial operations. One by one he had dealt with the
worst evils that afflicted France — the scarcity of money, the floating
debt, the paralysis of foreign commerce, the costly and oppressive fiscal
system — he now approached the problem of the standing debt. The
System had made money cheap. Everywhere debtors were gaining.
The seigneurs were clearing off their mortgages. The moment had come
for the State also to liquidate its debt, whose very existence represented
a dominance of private over public interest. So Law maintained ; and
he therefore proposed that the Company should lend the Government
fifteen hundred million livres at 3 per cent., with which to pay off
the renfe^-holders. Both parties wei'e to gain — the creditors of the State
would find a more profitable investment in the shares of the Company,
while the Government would reduce the rate of interest on the public
1718-20] The Rentes-AoZt/er*. — Position of Law. 175
debt by 1 per cent. Immense financial transactions followed. In four
successive issues Law placed upon the market 324,000 shares of 500 livres at
a price of 5000 livres each. The bank poured out notes to meet the demands
of speculation, and the public rushed in and bought the new shares. Their
price leaped up and excitement reached fever pitch. It was only with
difficulty and loss that the rentes-holA&cs made the exchange of their
rights from the State to the Company. For months there continued a
madness of speculation which has never been stu-passed. The price of
a share was raised to 12,000 livres. Fabulous fortunes were realised by
unknown and low-bom men. Foreigners crowded into Paris, and all
classes were mingled in the melee of the Rue Quincampoix. A new
and vulgar passion seemed to have asserted its intrusive presence, and
amidst the excitement men observed a luxury and a depravation of
manners that contrasted strangely with the severities in which the late
reign had closed. In such a tumult of extravagant anticipation the
System reached its zenith. Under its auspices real things had been done,
and fruitful enterprises set on foot ; but they were not represented by
the milliards of paper values with which a cosmopolitan throng gambled
in the Rue Quincampoix. By conjuring up prospects of gain. Law had
awakened the interest and cupidity of the nation, which took his vision
for a reality, and bought and sold the wealth which he imagined.
Law had now reached the summit of his fame and power. He was
honoin-ed and courted on all sides. The fashionable world crowded to
his levees, dukes and peers waited in his ante-room. Lady Mary Wortley
Montagu, passing through France in 1718, found to her delight "an
Englishman (at least a Briton) absolute in Paris." Foreign Governments
sought his good offices. From Germany, England and Italy came pro-
posals for the marriage of his children ; from Edinburgh the freedom of
the city in a gold box. He was made a member of the Academy of
Sciences, and, in January, 1720, after becoming a convert to the Catholic
faith, Controller-General; in March the title of Superintendent of Finance
was revived and conferred on him. But the inevitable reaction was at hand.
A share of 500 livres could not be maintained at 12,000 by a dividend of
12 per cent. ; and shrewd men had begun to realise and invest in real
property. The shares showed signs of falling ; and, as speculation ceased,
the evil effects of the inflated currency made themselves felt. The System
was threatened by a severe financial crisis, from which there could be no
escape. Uncertain what might happen were confidence seriously dis-
turbed. Law embarked on a heroic struggle against irresistible forces,
and burdened the System with the impossible task of maintaining the
price of the share and preventing the depreciation of the note. It is
impossible here to do more than summarise the fruitless efforts by which
he prolonged the agony throughout 1720, without staving off a collapse
wherein Bank, Company, and System were involved in common ruin.
He declared a dividend of 40 per cent., and took measures designed to
176 Collapse of the System. [1720-69
stimulate the circulation of the notes, which were becoming suspect in
commerce. In February the Bank and Company were united — perhaps
the two struggling swimmers might support each other. But the effect of
this measure, intended apparently to maintain the credit of the note,
was rather to sacrifice the credit of the share. In March the price of
the share was fixed at 9000 livres, and shares and notes were made inter-
changeable in this ratio at the Bank. The use of specie was virtually
proscribed, and large quantities were confiscated. The Rue Quincampoix
was closed, and speculators were dispersed by the sabres of the police.
But notes stiU flowed from the bank presses in an unending stream.
More desperate remedies seemed to be required, and in May, on the
ground that the notes and shares were over-valued in relation to specie
and commodities, it was ordered that by gradual stages their value should
be reduced to one-half. With this the credit of the note was utterly
destroyed, and panic complete and universal reigned. A confused period
followed. The edict was revoked, and Law was superseded, though, with
great courage, he remained in France throughout the year and, fertile as
ever in expedients, exerted himself to save the institutions he had founded.
But confidence could not be restored, and various attempts to call in a
part of the notes issued proved unavailing. The enemies of the System
closed in upon it. In October the Bank was abolished and the use of
specie permitted ; in December Law went into exile, while the Parkment
returned from it. Early in 1721 the Company was deprived of many of its
privileges, and a severe inquisition made into all the debts of the System.
The creditors were divided into five classes and received compensation
according to the apparent justice of their claims. The inquisition ended,
the mighty mass of records that had been collected was deposited in a
huge iron cage and burned in the Bank court.
Not so easily could the memories of Law's work be obliterated or its
influence for good and evil undone. He had struck the note of a more
liberal commercial and industrial policy. He had simplified taxation,
removed oppressive duties, broken down provincial customs-barriers,
recalled emigrants, and improved means of communication by building
roads and cutting canals. He had introduced fruitful ideas into com-
merce and administration, had laboured hard to promote the colonisation
of Louisiana, and had turned the attention of France once more towards
maritime and colonial enterprise. In addition, he had relieved the State
of a part of its debt, and enabled many of the seigneurs to free themselves.
The price of this was the widespread ruin, the violent redistribution
of wealth which the rise and fall of the System caused, and the reaction
that followed in its train, wherein the benefits of most of his reforms
were lost. The Bank was not reestablished; but the Company, pro-
tected by powerful friends, weathered the violences of the liquidation,
recovered some of its former privileges, and, though never very prosperous,
survived until 1769.
1710-29] Character of Law. 177
Prom the retreat of exile, his eyes turned on France, in vain hope to
be recalled, Law watched the dissolution of his work. Invincible optimist
as he was, his faith in his principles remained unshaken. He confessed
that he had moved too fast, but attributed the failure to unexpected events
which had compelled a departure from his plans. Montesquieu visited
him at Venice, where he died in 1729, and found him still the same
man, still absorbed in projects, still calculating values. It is no longer
necessary to add that he was no charlatan. He was, in fact, a great man,
and of his disinterestedness and integrity there can be no question.
Ambition actuated him ; and, playing ever high, he staked and lost his
name and fortune on his System. In character he exhibited the rare
combination of the audacious and brilliant theorist with the cool-headed
man of action. His mind, solely absorbed in economics, was, in some
respects, typical of the commercial spirit of his time ; yet, in his sympathy
and care for the masses of the people, he rose above its harder mani-
festations, and joined hands with later thinkers. No doubt prudence
ought to have restrained him from the attempt to revolutionise the
financial system of a nation in a few brief months; but a sanguine
temper urged him along untrodden paths, whose pitfalls experience had
not then revealed. He brought disaster on France; yet he deserved
better of her than exile, spoliation, and calumny.
It was not a mere coincidence that events, in some respects similar
to those just narrated, were happening at the same time on the other
side of the Channel. England, like France, was burdened with a heavy
debt, and her Government also turned, not for the first occasion, to
a commercial company for aid, and secured financial assistance by the
concession of trading privileges. But the South Sea Company and its
scheme cannot altogether be compared with the Company of the Indies
and the System. The sustained and scientific effort of Law to remodel
the economic life of France has an originality and a scope far beyond
the attempt made in England to lighten a financial burden and to
develop a trade with South America. The same cupidity, the same
infatuation contributed to the failure of both ; but the Bubble, inspired
by fewer ideas than the System, and less vast in its ambitions, was also
less fearful in the ruin that it wrought. The South Sea Company
owed its origin to a measure of Harley's for the improvement of the
public credit. In 1710 there existed a floating debt of more than nine
millions sterling, for the repayment of which no provision had been
made. Harley ofiered to incorporate the proprietors of this debt as a
chartered company with a monopoly of the trade to Spanish America,
for which it was expected that considerable facilities would be granted
in the Treaty of Peace then being negotiated. The rumoured wealth of
the Spanish Indies gave to the proposal a singular fascination, and the
Company was formed. It was forbidden to transact banking business,
or to send vessels into Eastern waters, but it was to have the exclusive
0. M. H. VI. CH. VI. 12
I'iTS The South Sea Company. [1710-8
right of trade with Spanish America, and to be permitted to make
discoveries and plant settlements within the territorial limits assigned.
Its privileges were to be perpetual, but the debt, on which the Govern-
ment guaranteed an interest of 6 per cent., was to be redeemable at one
year's notice after 1716.
That the Company thus founded never took a conspicuous place in
the annals of our trade and empire, but had a chequered and unpros-
perous career, and sank into an inglorious decline, was due, not to defects
in the scheme or to lack of energy, but principally to want of opportunity.
It never enjoyed any real prospect of developing commerce with the
Spanish possessions, or of planting colonies in South America, and the
enlargement of its trading privileges which it was led to expect was
afterwards refused. The concessions secured by the Treaty of Utrecht
proved very slender, and were hedged about with qualifications which
much diminished their utility. In addition to the famous Asiento, Great
Britain received permission to send for thirty years an annual vessel
of 600 tons burden (Spanish measure) to trade at certain specified
ports. Both of these rights were chiefly valued for the more profitable
contraband trade which they made possible. Troubles gathered thick
round the American trade in its infancy. Unexpected delays, obstacles,
charges, and confiscations by Spanish officials, for which no redress could
be obtained, diminished its profits ; and, on the- outbreak of war in 1718,
the Spanish Government seized the effects of the Company, contrary to
the original agreement. The Directors, however, had achieved some
success and profit by certain financial transactions which they had under-
taken on behalf of the Government ; and they were thus encouraged to
put forward the great scheme which has given to the Company its
principal fame.
TTieir proposal, after some of its more grandiose features had been
removed in consultation with Ministers, was that the Company should
take over thirty-one millions of unconverted debt, consisting chiefly of
irredeemable annuities, by purchase from the proprietors or by subscrip-
tion into their capital stock. The gain to the State was large and
evident. An immense debt would be converted into a redeemable form,
while the interest upon it was to be reduced from five to four per cent,
after 1727, and in addition, the Directors offered to pay ^^3,500,000 as
the price of the contract. The Government accepted the scheme; but the
House of Commons, persuaded that taking over debt was a very profit-
able operation, determined "as it were to set the nation to auction,"
with the result that the Bank outbid the Company. The Directors
hereupon increased their offer to ^7,500,000. This competition, carried
far beyond the bounds of prudence, was fatal to a doubtful scheme.
The Company's stock could never be worth the high price to which
it would have to be raised before the transaction could be success-
fully completed, and the project should have been still-bom. But,
1717-20] The South Sea scheme. — The Bubbles. 179
unfortunately, people were deceived by the arts and the rashness of
the Directors, with the extraordinary consequence that " the more the
South Sea Company were to pay to the public, the higher did their
stock rise upon it " ; and, before the South Sea Act had passed through
Parliament, where it was opposed by Walpole and others, the price of
the stock had risen above 300. Before proceeding to deal with the
annuitants, the Directors issued two money subscriptions, the first at
300, the second at 400, which were eagerly bought. They then proposed
what were, in the circumstances, favourable terms for the exchange of
the annuities, of which considerably more than one-half were immediately
subscribed, some having been deposited at the South Sea House before
any announcement had been made. The price of the stock rose at
a prodigious rate, though with strange and violent fluctuations; the
Directors lent out money freely on subscription receipts and the bankers
treated them "as good as land security." In the conditions that
prevailed, these facilities stimulated speculation until the course of
events became " ungovernable." The Directors yielded to the clamour
for a third money subscription, and sold five millions of stock at 1000.
In August, 1720, they received a second subscription of the irredeemables.
But the South Sea Company did not monopolise the interest of the
public. It was the giant bubble in a sea of bubbles. During the
preceding two or three years many projects of various kinds — industrial,
commercial, and financial — had been advertised; and in the fever of
excitement which attended the great operations of the South Sea
Company, their number multiplied with astonishing rapidity. Every
day saw new schemes put forward by enterprising stockbrokers who
took small deposits. The majority at least bore rational titles,
and related to fisheries, insm-ance, colonisation, land improvement, or
the establishment of some manufacture, though a few were purely
fantastic, and one audacious thief sounded the depth of public credulity
with "a certain. . .design, which will hereafter be promulgated," and
found it bottomless. Neither promoter nor subscriber as a rule expected
that a business would be set on foot ; both wished to gain by speculating
in the shares created. Many of these smaller companies received the
support of distinguished names. The Prince of Wales became a Governor
of the Welsh Copper Company, in spite of the protests of Walpole, and
gained =^40,000, before a remonstrance from the judges induced him
to resign his lucrative position. Amid scenes of great excitement the
shares were hawked in Change Alley. At milliners' and haberdashers'
shops, or in taverns and coffee-houses, ladies and gentlemen met their
brokers. Innumerable transactions took place, and much money changed
hands. People who had made profits in the smaller ventures hastened
to invest them in the older and greater companies, whose shares rose
to an unprecedented height. The Hudson's Bay Company, anxious to
improve the occasion, prepared to create additional shares for sale to
CH. VI. 12 — 2
180 The crisis. [i720
the public. "The very bank became a bubble," and lent out money
on its own stock. The Government remained, in Aislabie's words, " only
spectators of this melancholy scheme " — unable to control the Company
from whom such hard terms had been exacted.
The great majority of the Bubble Companies had no legal status,
being neither partnerships nor chartered bodies; and the South Sea
Directors, believing their existence prejudicial to the rise of South Sea
stock, procured a writ against some of them by name and against the
others in general. The writ struck consternation on the crowd of operators
in Change Alley. The projectors disappeared, and the orgy of specula-
tion suddenly ceased. But prudent men had doubted for some time the
soundness of the Company's own policy ; and the extraordinary collapse
of the smaller bubbles, with the consequent ruin of many people, spread
distrust far and wide, and the price of the stock fell rapidly. The
Directors sought to sustain it by lavish promises of dividends, but a
more calculating spirit had succeeded to the frenzy of expectation, and
men no longer believed that dividends of thirty and fifty per cent, were
possible. By September 20 the stock had fallen to 410, whence it rose
for a moment to 675 on the rumour that the Bank was coming to the
assistance of the Company, only to fall again with greater rapidity,
when the negotiations with the Bank failed, to 175 by the end of the
month. Passion had subsided, and the great delusion was at an end.
Thousands of people of all classes now found that, in a moment of
infatuation, they had been beguiled into surrendering a substance to
grasp a shadow, and that they were ruined.
In the general confusion and recrimination Walpole found himself
summoned by common consent to propose a remedy. It was no easy
matter to mitigate the vindictive spirit of the Commons, and turn their
energies towards practical measures for the restoration of public credit
and the relief of those who had suffered. Believing that the South Sea
scheme, for all the evils that it had entailed, had achieved a great public
end, by transforming the irredeemable annuities into a redeemable debt
bearing a lower rate of interest, he wished to " rely on the main founda-
tion" that the contracts made with the Company should be left untouched.
When this had been agreed, he proposed that 18 millions of South Sea
stock should be engrafted into the stocks of the Bank and the East
India Company ; that unsold South Sea stock, of which there remained
some 14 millions, should be distributed amongst the existing proprietors
as a dividend ; and that money subscribers should be relieved from
further payments. In addition part (afterwards increased to the whole)
of the sum promised by the Company. to the nation was to be remitted.
The proposals were accepted by Parliament, but the engraftment of
the 18 millions of stock, owing to the opposition of the other two
Companies concerned, was never carried out.
Meanwhile, the Commons proceeded with punitive measures. In
1721-60] Walpole and the Company. 181
January, 17S1, a committee was appointed to examine the manner in
which the South Sea Act had been executed. Its report exposed:
" a scene of iniquity and corruption." The Company's books would
not bear examination. Some had been destroyed or secreted. Knight,
the cashier, had disappeared with the register called the green book ;
in others " false and fictitious entries," " entries with blanks," " entries
with rasures and alterations " were discovered. A fictitious stock of
^574,000 had been disposed of before the South Sea Act was passed,
and " no mention made of the name of any person whatsoever to whom
the stock is supposed to be sold." It had helped to promote the
Bill. The Directors had laid themselves open to charges of illegality,
corruption, and favouritism; and some members of the Government
appeared to have been accomplices. Aislabie, the Craggs', father and
son, Charles Stanhope, and Sunderland were all accused of having used
their position to make profit from the scheme. The House of Commons,
carried away by the passions of the moment, acted with great severity
and little discrimination and confiscated the greater part of the estates
of the Directors, as well as of Aislabie and the elder Craggs. Walpole
moderated as fax as he could the fierceness of the outburst. He defended
Stanhope, who was .acquitted by a majority of three, " which put the
town in a flame " ; intervened on behalf of Aislabie, who was expelled
the House and committed to the Tower, and saved his old rival Sunder-
land, and with him the Whig administration. The Craggs', father and
son, dying suddenly, escaped condemnation — against the yoUnger little
had been proved. Thus the Bubble mania ended. There had been
a widespread overturning of fortunes, many innocent people had suffered
severely, and the collapse of credit injured industry and trade in all
parts of the country. But the nation had gained in having achieved
its ends ; and a few more prescient individuals, who sold their stock at
the right moment, reaped immense fortunes.
The subsequent history of the Company may be briefly outlined.
In 1722 it was permitted to sell four millions of its stock to the Bank,
and in the following year to divide the remainder, nearly 34 millions,
into two equal parts, the one to be annuity, the other trading stock.
For eight years it made a courageous effort to revive the Greenland
whale-fishery, but without success. Nor did its American trade prosper.
As early as 1732, the surrender of the Asiento and of the annual ship
for an equivalent was seriously discussed ; but the irregular trade
connected with these rights was considered too valuable to the nation.
However, the next year, the Company obtained permission to trans-
form three-quarters of its trading stock into new annuity stock, clear
of all trading risk; and at last, in 1750, in exchange for o&lOOjOOO
from the Spanish Government, they abandoned, for the remaining four
years of their term, the concessions obtained at Utrecht, and an end
was put to a trade which, " without any substantial benefit to Great
182 Colonial development. [i7i3-i853
Britain, had given insuperable umbrage to the Court of Madrid." The
surrender virtually terminated the commercial history of the Company,
though its exclusive privileges were not taken away until 1807, In 1853
the remaining South Sea annuities were either redeemed or converted
into other government stock.
"National power and wealth," wrote Law, "consists in numbers of
people and magazines of home and foreign goods. These depend on
trade...." The statement may serve as a terse expression of the economic
faith and ambition of the early eighteenth century. It explains the
concentration on commercial and industrial expansion, to which both
the Bubble mania in England and the System in France bore witness.
It explains moreover the colonial policy of the older nations. They
still regarded the new lands as plantations, sources whence raw materials
were obtained, markets under control, playing their part in general
history by the services they rendered to their mother States; and
remained blind or indifferent to the significance of the great develop-
ment these lands were undergoing. Thus trade increased and flourished ;
but, save in the case of the French, colonising energy waned. Between
1713 and the outbreak of the American War few new colonies were
planted ; and in the history of maritime exploration, there is little to
record from the voyages of Dampier to those of Cook and his French
and English contemporaries. To the eagerness of the sixteenth century,
and the enthusiasm of the seventeenth, had succeeded, with more know-
ledge, a more calculating spirit and more definite aims. It seemed better
to develop existing fields of colonisation than to compass sea and land
to find new. With fewer fresh beginnings there was less unavailing
effort ; and, save that the long rivalry of French and English proceeded
to its conclusiouj less wasting strife amongst the nations for the owner-
ship of territory. By 1713, their various spheres of action had been
largely determined, either by treaty, or by the surer arbitration of
impregnable possession. In the East, Dutch, English, and French
divided almost the whole of the trade; and, in 1731, the Emperor
Charles VFs endeavour to obtain a share for the merchants of the
Austrian Netherlands by the foundation of the Ostend East India
Company, was finally defeated by their united diplomatic efforts. The
political significance of this transaction is described elsewhere. But,
though colonial progress rested principally on the foundations already
laid, it did not slacken. The young societies of the New World grew
rich and strong, enlarged their borders, and found in their own vigorous
life the impetus which the overflowing enterprise of Europe, now con-
centrated in narrower channels, had formerly provided. Only a few
words need here be said as to their expansion, since it resulted in the
founding of new States and a complete transformation of the colonial
world, which are described in later volumes.
1713-83] Colonisation in America. 183
On the continent of North America the great problem of the
eighteenth century was, who should colonise the vast interior — the
English, firmly planted on the Atlantic plains, or the French, strongly
posted on the St Lawrence ? In favour of the French were their prior
possession, ease of access and unflagging and brilliant ambition. But
they fought against insuperable odds. It was population and wealth
that were to tell, and the adventurous enterprise of their leaders was
fruitless when not backed by the strength of the colonist. Louisiana,
indeed, had struggled painfully into existence, and Canada, in spite of
an unfavourable climate and soil and the dangerous navigation of the
St Lawrence, had made real progress. At a time when kings had ceased
to study Canadian censuses, and the hopes of France were turned towards
the Mississippi, a French-Canadian people was coming into being. But
in this competition the English had completely distanced their opponents.
In the growth of their population, the success of their agriculture, and
the activity of their commerce, England's Atlantic colonies had more
than realised the promise of the preceding century, and already discerning
eyes caught a glimpse of a marvellous future. Rich and populous, these
colonies craved wider boundaries, and threatened to overflow into the Ohio
Valley. Nor was their strength that of wealth alone. They were fully
developed societies. Their self-government was a reality; only in industry
and commerce did they suffer the control of the mother country, and
in commerce her regulations were systematically evaded. They enjoyed
a substantial race unity, and though local patriotism was strong — for
differences of religion and of economic conditions had caused striking
diversities in their development — they were not unconscious of common
interests or of a common destiny. Thus economic strength seemed to
be pitted against imperial imagination; but, while the issue was still
doubtful, the fortunes of war over a wider field transferred the French
North American possessions to the English Crown.
In Central and South America the distribution of power remained
unchanged. No further Teutonic encroachments disturbed the Latin
nations in the security of their vast dominions; save where, in Central
America, the persistence of the logwood-cutters established a right
which, recognised and amplified in treaties, led to the foundation of
the British colony of Hondurajs. The Spanish Government still con-
tinued, but with no greater success, a vain struggle to monopolise the
commerce of its empire; and the strange spectacle was presented of
colonist, foreigner, and official combining to defeat the regulations and
policy of the mother country. Mexico and Peru cried out for freer
trade; and Dutch, English, French, and Danish smugglers bought or
forced an entrance for their goods. Several islands in the West Indies
flourished on this contraband, and Buenos Ayres became a great city.
In the latter half of the century, by cautious and leisurely steps, Spain
relaxed her restrictions, to the great advantage of her colonies, but
184 The West Indies. Economic and social conditions. [i7i3-83
without removing the sense of grievance which her policy had excited.
The progress of Brazil continued, and the southern provinces much
increased in wealth and importance. The discovery of gold and then
of diamonds brought settlers and commerce. Rio de Janeiro became a
busier port than Bahia, though the wealth of the country still rested on
sugar and coffee plantations rather than on minerals.
These great developments and their consequences form the chief
features of colonial history during the eighteenth century. In the earliest
arenas of colonisation, the West Indies and the African coast, such changes
were not possible. Nature fixed narrow limits to the economic progress
of small islands, and hence also to their capacity of self-defence and
their political outlook. And progress was not only limited; it was also
uncertain and fluctuating. Where fertile land was to be had, thither men
hurried; and the growth of an island community might be rapid in the
extreme; but, wasteful methods of cultivation exhausbing the soil, the
fortunes of most islands, after a brief period of prosperity, declined to
a certain normal level, varying according to their advantages and the
competition of other islands. Thus supremacy shifted from one to another.
Throughout the West Indies the principal industry was the cultivation of
sugar. Cocoa, indigo, cotton, and coffee plantations also existed; but the
exports of these commodities could not compare in value with that of
sugar — and only in the Bermudas and Bahamas, which were comparatively
neglected, were other industries more important. Yet the anxieties of
sugar cultivation were great. A large capital had to be sunk in land,
buildings, and stock, and serious risks of loss by hurricane, slave revolt,
or capture at sea to be faced; though, on the other hand, could be set
the sure market at a high price, and the large returns of a good season.
From the English islands the greater part of the crop was exported to
the mother country; the remainder, together with rum and molasses, to
the English colonies on the mainland, in exchange for horses, lumber,
and provisions, since few of the islands were entirely self-sufBcing in their
food supplies. Many of the proprietors were absentees, and much of the
capital invested was raised in England, especially in the case of the
Windward Islands. As sugar production extended, so also did the
slavery system. The large plantation displaced the small freehold, and
the negro ousted the white workman. Almost everywhere the African
population out-numbered, and was generally many times greater than,
the European. The social order took the form of a planter aristocracy
resting on slave labour, and the white middle class either disappeared or
lost in status. Hence arose societies fragile in their structure, limited in
their development, and cruel in their laws. The governing class, ex-
posed to constant danger of an upheaval in the ranks of industry below,
protected itself by stringent and heartless legislation. On the plantations
the slaves appear to have been generally overworked. It was not the
climate, but the system, which decimated the black population, and
1713-83] European Powers in the West Indies. 185
rendered its natural increase so small that an immense annual importa-
tion was necessary to maintain its numbers. Yet the negro was not
incapable of freedom, any more than he was of brutal retaliation. The
Maroons of Jamaica, hardy descendants of Spanish slaves, or of fugitives
from English masters, gave an example, before the day of Toussaint
L'Ouverture, of black communities able to assert and maintain their
independence. The Government of the island, unable to extirpate these
troublesome bands, had been compelled to guarantee their freedom and
assign them reserves of land. Thus, in much which represents the
triumph of civilisation over barbarism, the development of the West
Indies was slow. In days of struggle and experiment it was no wonder that
life was restless, and the progress of the arts small. But the eighteenth
century saw little amelioration of these evils. Nature offered no fairer
scene of colonisation than the islands in the Caribbean Sea, but nowhere
were manners more unbridled, slavery crueller, and the higher interests of
civilisation more completely neglected. Commerce, lawful and unlawful
— the sugar trade, the logwood trade, the negro trade, the contraband
trade — governed all things. Buccaneering indeed had ceased; but piracy,
mean and cruel, continued. Desperate men still infested the seas, giving
little quarter and receiving less. Slave conspiracies and revolts darkened
the annals of most years. The evils were partly a result of political and
economic inseciu-ity, and partly of a spirit of commercial exploitation
unrestrained in the interests of the general social welfare.
The rivalry of French and English showed itself as conspicuously in
the West Indies as on the mainland. After 1713 both Powers turned
their attention to the Windward Islands. But their claims collided, and
for years little was done, since each prevented the other from making
settlements. The pressure of population, the impetus of progress, and the
attractions of such islands as St Lucia, Grenada, and St Vincent were,
however, certain to break down this policy of mutual exclusion. A par-
tition was necessary, and fortunately for England, one was made in 1763,
at the close of a war in which she had achieved a decisive success. France
received St Lucia; England, Grenada and St Vincent as well as Tobago
and Dominica, and new fields of colonisation were thus laid open. But
the relative position of the different Powers depended on the development
of the islands which they owned as well as on the acquisition of new
territory. In this respect the French had an advantage. Their islands
were larger than those of other Powers, with the exception of the
Spanish, and their policy was wiser. In the English islands taxation
was heavier, and trade was more restricted than in the French, while the
refining industry was discoiu:aged by a high duty on refined sugar
imported into the mother country. In addition, the French were more
successful in the management of the negro, who, under better treatment,
was found more orderly, sensible, and honest. It was generally said that
the energy oi the English had declined, and they certainly suffered from
186 EuropeanPowers in the West Indies-West Africa. [i7i3-83
a want of great leaders. In Jamaica much good land lay unoccupied,
and, though this remained the most populous and richest of the
English islands, its progress had disappointed expectations. Both from
a military and a commercial point of view its central position rendered
it of great value to the English, and Kingston was a home of all West
Indian trades. In the Leeward Islands there was little change. The
occupation of the Windward Islands proceeded slowly after 1763.
Tobago, which suffered endless vicissitudes of fortune, was ceded to
the French in 1783, though afterwards recovered. Barbados remained
throughout the century an inviolate fortress of British power, and
exhibited more of the order and decency of civilisation than was to be
found elsewhere in the West Indies. Of the political life of the English
islands little needs to be said. In 1764 the Government of Grenada was
formed, including also the islands of Tobago, St Lucia, and, for a time,
Dominica, though Dominica in 1770 received a separate Governor. All
the islands enjoyed self-government, and on the whole their relations
with the mother country were good. They had grievances; they com-
plained that the Governor was sent to make what he could of them,
that the civil establishment was too expensive, and that heavy taxation
handicapped them in competition with the French islands; but they
were probably not unconscious that their interests were carefully regarded
in England, and that the mother country bore the burden of their
defence, which the condition of their militia did little to lighten.
In the West Indies the activity of French and English always con-
trasted strongly with the receding energy of the Spaniards, as did their
policy of colonisation with the commercial policy of Dutch and Danes.
Thus the stream of progress scarcely touched the Spanish islands. Porto
Rico remained a penal settlement, and in Trinidad the cocoa plantations
went into decay. Nor did sugar cultivation yet usurp the upper hand
in Cuba, where the whites still outnumbered the blacks, and the small
freeholder held his ground. The Danes in 1733 bought Santa Cruz
from the French, but the progress of their islands was for a long time
fettered by the control of an exclusive company. The Dutch owned but
a " rock or two," St Eustatius and Cura9oa with Oruba and Buen Ayre ;
but frugality, diligence, and concentration on business brought them
wealth. The trade of Cura9oa always flourished, and in war time it was
"the common emporium of the West Indies." On the mainland, by
persistent industry, they established sugar plantations on the banks of
the Berbice, the Essequibo, and, in 1745, of the Demerara also; whose
courses they followed far into the interior in pursuit of the Indian trade.
The price of the rapid colonisation of North America was partly
paid by Africa, which still lay under the blighting influence of the slave
trade. On the west coast a line of forts and factories, planted at the
mouths of small streams or on adjoining islands, and much coming and
going of vessels, bringing in the varieties of manufactures required, and
1680-1791] The Slave Trade. — The African Company. 187
bearing away their human cargoes, represented the principal activity of
Europe. No Power sought territorial dominion, or attempted explora-
tion and settlement. The primitive civilisations of the interior offered
little opportunity for general commerce, and though there was a Gum
Coast, a Grain Coast, an Ivory Coast, and a Gold Coast, and these
commodities and also redwood were obtained in small quantities, almost
everywhere it was the negro traffic which dominated. From Cape Blanco
in the north to the Portuguese settlement of Loanda in the south, over
a distance of 1300 leagues, the slave trader r^ged. In Senegambia
control passed into the hands of the English ; the Windward Coast was
a Portuguese sphere ; on the Gold Coast the trade belonged chiefly to
the English and Dutch ; further south chiefly to the French and Dutch,
and south of the Congo to the Portuguese again, who from here
worked across the continent to their possessions on the east coast. It
is difficult to estimate accurately the volume of a trade which fluctuated
from year to year, but certainly it underwent a continual expansion
down to the time of the American War, when it had probably attained
its largest dimensions. The growth of the sugar islands, the culti-
vation of tobacco in Virginia and of rice and cotton in the Carolinajs,
the development of the Spanish mines, the increasing needs of Brazil,
where Pombal made the freedom of the Indians a reality, all contributed
to enlarge the demand for negroes, until, in occasional years towards
the end of the century, the total export from Africa might exceed
100,000, though the annual average was certainly very much less.
The English alone, at a low estimate, carried over two million negroes
to America in the period between 1680 and 1786. They generally
enjoyed the largest share of the trade, but no one of the colonising
nations kept its hands entirely clean. All saw in it "the chief and
fundamental support" of their American plantations. The Portuguese
drew their slaves from a wider field than the other Powers, from East as
well as West Africa; and they had in Brazil an immense market, whose
nearness diminished the losses of the Atlantic journey, or Middle
Passage, as it was called. The French took a prominent part, until at
the end of the century they were driven from the seas; so did the
Dutch, who in 1791 owned fifteen of the forty stations on the Guinea
Coast, and the New Englanders and Danes also had a share. The
encouragement and control of the trade received the most careful
attention of the English Government; and the African Company was
described as "the most beneficial to this island of all the Companies
that ever were formed by our merchants." A business destined in the
course of time to be prohibited by law seemed in the eighteenth century
so important for the development of our manufactures, shipping, and
plantations as to receive, not only national regulation and protection,
but also a national subsidy. In 1730 Parliament granted the African
Company ^10,000 a year towards the maintenance of its forts and
188 Abolitionof the Slave Trade.-The Cape Colony. [1712-1807
factories, for the ten per cent, on their exports to Africa paid by private
traders had lapsed in 1712, and the Company could no longer bear its
burdens unaided. But the Company did not recover, and at last
Parliament, fearing the injiunous results of a declining negro trade,
intervened, and in 1750 wound up the old Company and substituted a
Regulated Company, subject to the control of a managing committee
and including all merchants trading to Africa, to which the annual
grant was continued. This was the third distinct system on which the
African trade had been organised.
It was impossible that such extensive traffic in the human species by
the foremost nations of the world should continue indefinitely. Even in
an age which did not lend an attentive ear to human suffering, the
horrors of the Middle Passage, and the fearful mortality of the negroes in
the process of acclimatisation and under the rigours of the plantation
system, excited protest; and when, in the latter part of the century,
with the progress of the Evangelical party, a strong humanitarian
sentiment gained ground in England, a movement was begun which,
gradually accumulating strength from various quarters, assembled some
of the most distinguished men of the day to battle against the com-
mercial interests involved. In 1787 was formed the famous committee
for the abolition of the trade, whereon sat many members of the Society
of Friends, long to the front in this fight; Granville Sharp, who had
procured Lord Mansfield's decision in 1772, putting an end to slavery in
England ; Clarkson, who as a Cambridge graduate had written a memor-
able thesis against slavery; and Wilberforce. But the fear of injuring
the country's shipping and colonial trade, and the behef that other
nations would continue the business, even if Great Britain abandoned it,
long prevented any change ; and it was the Regent of Denmark who led
the way in 1792 by prohibiting the trade in Danish possessions from
1802; nor was it until 1807 that in England and the United States
Acts of abolition were passed. Meanwhile, other events were changing
the relations of Europe and Africa. In 1795 Mungo Park made his first
great journey of exploration for the African Association. Moreover in
1787 the Sierra Leone Company was founded; certain philanthropists
fathered and the Government supported a scheme for returning the
emancipated negro to the land of his origin, and for opening the
continent to a more civilised commerce than that which had hitherto
dai'kened its history.
There was one part of Africa which lay outside the sphere of this
desolating traffic. In the Cape Colony, which had remained a possession
of the Dutch East India Company, settlement had been extended, and,
as a result of peculiar geographical and political conditions and a
mixture of races, a new national type had come into being. The Dutch
formed the predominant element, but the French Huguenots, who came
1713-1825] The Boers. — Colonial independence. 189
to Africa at the end of the seventeenth century, and the Germans, who
arrived in considerable numbers after the middle of the eighteenth, had
also contributed. In 1791 the European population numbered about
15,000 with 17,000 slaves. The white colonists could be divided into
three groups, whose interests were somewhat separate: the trading classes
of Cape Town, the com and wine farmers of the adjoining country, and
the graziers. The latter had penetrated into the interior. Silently
dispersing over the country — their ranches far apart — they had carried
the bounds of settlement north almost to the Orange river, and east to
the Great Fish river, where they had come at last into collision with
the Kosa KafBrs, then advancing along the eastern margin of the
continent. They formed the Boer people, whose character, fashioned
in circumstances of isolation, hardship and simplicity, was to exert so
strong an influence on the course of South African history. No foreign
Power interfered with a colony which seemed to have only the slenderest
resources, and which was in fact a continual source of expense ; but its
life was troubled by the economic oppression almost everywhere associated
with company control. The Dutch saw the Cape as part of a wider
dominion, and failing to reconcile the problem of local self-government
with that of imperial development, they ruled it autocratically. A
governor, who was usually seeking promotion to some more lucrative
post, advised by a council of officers, shared with a financial minister,
the Independent Fiscal, the responsibilities of administration. Repre-
sentative institutions were wanting, though local boards for the settlement
of small disputes sustained in some degree the spirit and form of local
liberty, and, in addition, burgher councillors sat in the High Court of
Justice. The selfishness of the Company's rule, especially in the last
quarter of the century, and the corrupt practices of its officials, at last
provoked a section of the colonists to resistance; but, in the midst of their
struggle for a greater economic and political freedom, the Revolutionary
Wars began, and the colony passed into the hands of the English,
The signs of change visible in Africa were but a faint reflexion of
the greater changes taking place or threatening on the other side of the
Atlantic. For the colonial world an epoch was ending, and a period of
great and violent transformation had begun. In North America the
English colonies, easily alienated at the last, wrested their independence
from the mother country, and resisting the inclination to division, united
to form a powerful State. In the West Indies, incapable of so great an
effort and so wide an outlook, voices of sympathy were raised. In San
Domingo a negro republic made itself free. In South America the hold
of Spain on her vast dominions was loosed at last, and they broke up
into a group of States. About the same time, Brazil repudiated the
authority of Portugal. All the great colonising Powers shared the same
fate — ^their offspring threw off' their control. With one mind, the young
190 Collapse of the old colonial system. [i778-i825
nations rose up and condemned the old colonial system. The South
African farmer and the New England merchant, the Creole of Peru and
the emancipated negro, all were animated by the same spirit. So
universal was the movement that it seemed like a normal and inevitable
development. It seemed as though the life of a colony naturally pro-
gressed through certain stages to this final issue — first, the distant
voyage, the perilous exploration, the clash with aboriginal peoples, the
long and painful struggle with nature; then, the young society, embody-
ing the civilisation and arts of the mother country, with its usefiil
commerce and its nursery of political posts; and, after that, the growth
of its own characteristics and the increasing sense of power and self-
interest, to be disregarded and stifled as long as possible, but sure to
lead on to the last act of separation and self-assertion. Certainly, the
Governments of Europe were not unconscious that this might be the end
of all their efforts, and France and Spain denied to their colonies the
political life which might hasten its coming. England to a great extent
neglected possibilities and waited to deal with facts. But all alike were
helpless in face of so great an issue, and saw no alternative line of
colonial evolution. In this sphere the political ideas of the eighteenth
century seemed to be exhausted. To develop imperial commerce had
become a less urgent problem than to foster the sense of a common
loyalty in mother country and colony; but no nation proved capable of
adaptation to the new conditions, and no adequate imperial policy was
anywhere formulated. The conceptions of the Old World lagged behind
the facts of the New. Where communities of white men had established
themselves and grown strong, political ambition and self-consciousness
were sure to make their appearance, and such communities would not
rest satisfied with a limited economic freedom and a subordinate political
status. With interests and character of their own, they would not
remain the appendages of greater Powers, mere counters in the game of
European preeminence. Either the nature of the relations must change
or the bonds be broken. And, since the mother country offered at best
nothing more than a commercial treaty, whose terms were settled wholly
by herself, the colonists gave play to a more youthful and vigorous
imagination, and saw in an independent national being a more attractive
vision. Looking back, then, on the attitude of Europe to her colonies,
with little elasticity, imagination, or sympathy, and also on the character
of those colonies themselves, strong, sensitive, and aspiring, the dissolution
of their union awakens no surprise. If it was possible " to found a great
empire for the sole purpose of raising up a people of customers," it was
not for this alone that it could be maintained. Thus the old colonial
system collapsed, and an epoch of colonial history ended in obstinate and
fluctuating war, in furious excesses, or in peacefiJ and silent transition.
191
CHAPTER VII.
POLAND UNDER THE SAXON KINGS.
Of the eighteen competitors for the throne of Poland vacant in
1696 by the death of John HI, Sobieski, the most notable were the
Austrian candidate, the Krdlewicz, or Crown Prince, James Sobieski ; the
Prussian candidate. Margrave Lewis William of Baden-Baden ; Frederick
Augustus, Elector of Saxony; and Prince Henri of Conde and Prince
Louis of Conti, successively supported by France. The chances of James
Sobieski, on the whole the most suitable candidate, were ruined by the
hostile intrigues of his own mother the Queen Dowager, Maria Casimiria,
and the jealousy of all the other native candidates. The Margrave of
Baden, ill supported, retired betimes from the contest which finally
resolved itself into a duel between the Elector of Saxony and the Prince
of Conti. At first the Elector was regarded by nobody as a serious
candidate; but his prospects brightened after he had publicly abjured
Protestantism for Catholicism at the crisis of the struggle. He also had
a longer and better administered purse than that of the French Minister
in Poland, Abbe de Polignac ; but his chief advantage lay in the fact
that all the neighbouring Powers preferred to see a German rather than
a Frenchman or a Pole on the Polish throne. Tsar Peter even went so
far as to threaten the Polish Senate with an invasion if they dared to
choose a Frenchman. Nevertheless, the Prince of Conti was elected
King of Poland by a considerable majority. It was only as the nominee
of a minority, and consequently without possessing any legal status, that
Frederick Augustus, at the head of a well-disciplined Saxon army which
had been patiently awaiting the issue of events close to the Polish
frontier, drove out the lawful sovereign. On September 16 he was
crowned at Cracow as Augustus II; but his title was not generally
recognised in Poland till nearly two years later.
The determination of the new King to transform, and if possible
abolish, the hopelessly vicious Constitution which was the source of all
the calamities of Poland, furnishes the key to the right interpretation of
the events of this imlucky reign. Augustus judged, rightly enough, that
the presence in the country of a permanent and devoted regular army
CH. VII.
192 Augustus II and Lithuania. [i693-i7oo
was the only means whereby a coup cTHat could be effected. The Poles,
always pretematurally wary of the least movement on the part of an
enterprising ruler, had, indeed, already bound his hands to some extent,
by insisting, energetically, on the withdrawal from the kingdom proper
of all the forces of Augustus except a body-guard of 1200 men. But
they had no objection to his maintaining an army corps of 7000 in the
grand duchy of Lithuania, and with this, for a time, Augustus had to
be content.
During the last years of the reign of John III Lithuania had suffered
from chronic anarchy, due mainly to the tyranny and violence of the
great House of Sapieha which preyed upon its neighbours, lay and
clerical. Casimir Sapieha, Grand Hetman of Lithuania, in a private
quarrel with the Bishop of Vilna, had devastated the whole diocese and
burnt dozens of churches and hundreds of manor houses. Twice, in 1693
and 1695, John III had been forced to summon Sapieha to answer for
his misdeeds before the one tribunal he could not ignore — the sovereign
Diet. On both occasions the partisans of Sapieha had succeeded in
" exploding^ " the Diet before it had time to consider the case. In other
words, that palladium of individual liberty, the liberum veto, had sunk
so low that its principal use was to shelter high-placed felons from the
pursuit of jtistice. In 1700 the insupportable misrule of the Sapiehas
provoked an insurrection of all the other Lithuanian nobles against
them, and, with the assistance of the Saxon troops, they were finally
subdued, deprived of all their honours and dignities and expelled the
country. A few months later, however, they were back again in the
track of the victorious armies of Charles XII. Subsequently they became
the chief supporters of the new King, Stanislaus Leszczynski, whom
Charles placed upon the Polish throne.
After the removal of the Sapiehas, Augustus found a fresh justi-
fication for the continuance of his Saxons in Lithuania, and in Poland
also, in the obligations of the great Northern War, of wliich he was one
of the principal promoters^ The details of that momentous episode, more
especially its influence upon European politics, have already been set
forth in this History. It only remains to be added that, as regards
Poland, this war was an unmitigated disaster. The Republic had
emerged from the most terrible of the cataclysms of the sixteenth and
seventeenth centuries, not xmscathed indeed, but at least morally chastened
and stimulated. The stress of calamity had invariably rekindled the
old martial spirit of the Szlachta (gentry), and, even in the darkest hours,
evoked national heroes and deliverers. But the ten years' war which
terminated with the collapse of Charles XII at Poltawa had no such
salutary after-effect. It produced not a single eminent Polish captain,
not a single valiant Polish soldier. Again and again, thousands of
' I.e. abruptly terminating it by the "nie poswulam" (I protest) of a single
deputy, instead of letting it run out its term, which was generally fixed beforehand.
1719-33] The last years of Augustus II. 193
ornamental Polish cavalry fled before mere handfuls of Swedish and even of
Russian troops. Still worse,, the war left Polish society more demoralised
than it had ever been before. For the first time in Polish history the
spirit of the nation languished hopelessly, the natural elasticity of the
most mercurial of nations seemed broken, its wonderful recuperative
energy seemed at last to be exhausted. Politically, too, Poland gained
nothing by this war. Its immediate result was a degrading dependence
on the Tsar, who still further increased his influence in the country by
constantly mediating between Augustus and his mutinous subjects, The
desperate eflbrts of the King Elector to shake off" this galling yoke,
culminating in the defensive alliance concluded at Vienna on January 5,
1719, with the Emperor Charles VI and George I of England against
"any enemy whatsoever," with obvious reference to Russia, were frustrated
by the helplessness of the Polish Diet, which, instead of cooperating with
the Saxon Government, allowed itself, notably in 1719 and 1720, to be
"exploded" by Russian hirelings. During the ensuing ten years of peace
and material prosperity, the leading men in Poland, sunk in apathy and
inertia, regarded with indifference the presence and the depredations of
their Muscovite " auxiliaries," and at the same time rejected every oppor-
tunity of concluding favourable alliances, in nervous apprehension of
exciting fresh wars and complications. Absolute neutrality in any circum-
stances was now the political maxim of the Se^m (Diet), In the last years
of his reign Augustus endeavoured to form a Saxon party in Poland itself,
with the view of securing the succession to his son Frederick Augustus.
To disarm foreign adversaries he, at the same time, meditated a partition
of Poland between Austria, Prussia, and himself, whereby the bulk of the
territory of the Republic was to be erected into an hereditary monarchy
under the rule of the Saxon House. Nefarious as this project undoubtedly
was, it might, nevertheless, have been the saving of Poland, if only it
could have been carried out. But all the schemes and intrigues of
Augustus were suddenly cut short by his death (February 1, 1733),
The leading man in Poland on the death of Augustus II was the
Primate and Interrex, Theodore Potocki, a devoted adherent of Stanislaus
Leszczynski. He was upright, conscientious, and a true patriot, but too
old to fight effectually for freedom, and, besides, circumstances were
against him; His first steps were to dissolve the Diet; disperse the
body-guard of the late King ; order the Saxon auxiliaries to quit Poland ;
and put small corps of observation along the Austrian and Prussian
frontiers. He found active supporters in the French ambassador,
Count Monti, in the great Lithuanian family of Czartoryski, and above
all in the Palatine of Mazovia, Stanislaus Poniatowski, the one really
capable statesman Poland then possessed, who had served Charles XH's
protSgi, King Stanislaus, with zeal and ability thirty years before, and
was now ready to sacrifice everything for him once more. It was to
France that Potocki and Poniatowski looked for help, nor was France
0, M. H. VI. CH. VII. 13
194 Candidature of Stanislaus Leszezynsld. [i733
slow to champion a cause that was peculiarly her own. For the first
time since her eclipse at the Peace of Utrecht, she saw before her an
opportunity of recovering her hegemony on the continent. It had ever
been her interest, as the arch-enemy of the Habsburgs, to environ the
Empire with actual or contingent foes. Her ideal system, so far as it
concerned eastern Europe, was a hostile combination of Sweden, Poland,
and Turkey against the common foe. With the father-in-law of the
French King on the Polish throne (Marie Leszczynska, the daughter of
Stanislaus, had been married to Louis XV on September 5, 1725), a first
step would have been taken towards the reestablishment of French
influence on the continent. As a preliminary measure, 4,000,000 livres
of secret-service money were despatched from Versailles to Warsaw for
bribing piu-poses, and Monti succeeded in gaining over to the cause of
Stanislaus the influential Palatine of Lublin, Adam Tarlo. In a circular
letter, addressed to all its representatives abroad, the French Government
formally declared that, as the Court of Vienna, by massing troops on the
Silesian frontier, had sufficiently revealed its intention of destroying the
liberties of Poland by interfering, with the free election of her King, his
Most Christian Majesty could not regard with indiEFerence the political
extinction of a Power to whom he was bound by all the ties of honour
and friendship, but would do his utmost to protect her against her
enemies. On May 8, 1733, the Interrex summoned a preliminary or
"convocation" Diet to Warsaw. The temper of the assembly was
unmistakably hostile to any foreign candidate. Indeed, many of its
members declared they would rather see a gipsy on the throne than
another Grerman. It was finally resolved that none but a native Pole,
who was a Catholic and married to a Catholic, should be elected. But,
when the Diet was called upon by the Primate solemnly to swear to
observe its own resolutions, not a few deputies began to raise objections
or make reservations, while others quitted the Diet determined to protest
against all its proceedings on the first opportunity^ Thus the chronic
and incurable divisions of the Republic encouraged the Powers opposed
to the election of Stanislaus plausibly to come forward as the champion^
of a free election, with the certainty of finding partisans among the Poles
themselves.
When the tidings of the death of Augustus II reached St Petersburg,
a grand national council was summoned, at which it was agreed unani-
mously that the interests of Russia would not permit her to recognise
Stanislaus Leszczynski, or indeed any person dependent directly on France
(and therefore, indirectly, on Turkey and Sweden also) as a candidate
for the Polish throne. Thereupon, a menacing letter was addi'essed to
the Polish Primate demanding that the name of Stanislaus should be
struck off the list of candidates, and Count Carl Gustaf Lowenwolde was
sent to Warsaw to reinforce his brother, Count Frederick Casimir, the
actual Russian resident at the Polish capital. The two Ministers,
1733} Election of Stanislaus. 195
accompanied by the envoys of Austria and Prussia, lost no time in
waiting upon the Archbishop ; but Potocki was not to be intimidated
and their interference only led to a sharp altercation. Immediately
afterwards, the Interrex summoned an elective Diet, which assembled at
Fraga, a suburb of Warsaw, on August 26, 1733.
The protest of Russia and Austria had been bold and resolute ; but
they were hampered at the outset by a peculiar difficulty : they had no
alternative candidate of their own to offer. Stanislaus Leszczynski was
the only native Pole who had the slightest chance of being elected King.
It was therefore necessary to look abroad for a candidate. The Infant
Emmanuel of Portugal, who had visited Russia in 1731, as a suitor for
the band of the Empress Anne, was at first proposed by the Court of
Vienna; but his father would not consent to his nomination, and,
ultimately, both Russia and Austria agreed to support the pretensions
of the Elector of Saxony, the late King's son. Hitherto, indeed,
Frederick Augustus had been regarded at Vienna with no friendly eye.
He was suspected of leaning too much upon France as his father had
done before him, and he had always steadily opposed the Pragmatic
Sanction ; but, when it became evident that none other but the Saxon
faction was strong enough to oppose Stanislaus, all objections on the
part of the two Courts ceased, and Lowenwolde concluded a treaty with the
Elector (August 14, 1733), whereby he acceded to the Pragmatic Sanction,
contracted a treaty of mutual defence and guarantee with Russia and
Austria, and promised to keep inviolate the Constitution of the Polish
Republic. Eighteen regiments of Russian infantry and ten of cavalry
were then sent to the frontier, to be ready, at a moment's notice, to enter
Poland.
But the march of events had been so rapid that it had now become
necessary not merely to direct, but to reverse, the decision of the Polish
nation. Nine days after the assembling of the Sejm, the vast majority
of whose members remained faithful to the Primate, it issued a manifesto
(September 4) solemnly cursing all who should assist or welcome the
Muscovites. On the 9th, Stanislaus himself arrived at W^arsaw, having
travelled through central Europe disguised as a coachman. On the
following day 60,000 armed and mounted noblemen assembled on the
field of election. For eight hours the aged Interrex, after disregarding
as irregular a protest from some 3000 malcontents, who were observing the
proceedings from the opposite side of the Vistula, proceeded on horseback
through the drenching rain, from group to group, asking all the deputies
in turn whom they would have for their King, and greeted everywhere
with shouts of : " Long live King Stanislaus ! " Finally, after making
another vain appeal to the patriotism of the malcontent minority, the
Primate solemnly pronounced Stanislaus the duly elected King of Poland;
while the minority retired to Wongrowa, whence they issued a counter-
manifesto, declaring the election null and void.
OH. VII. 13 — 2
196 Beginning of the War of the Polish Succession. [i733-4
Thus Stanislaus had been elected King of Poland for the second time ;
but his tenure of that perilous office was to be even briefer than it had
been before. Immediately after his election, he issued a proclamation
ordering a lev^e en masse of the gentry; but, having no forces ready at
hand to support him (the Polish regular army existing only on paper),
he was obliged, twelve days after his election, to leave the defenceless
capital, and shut himself up in Danzig with the Primate, Poniatowski,
the Czartoryskis, and the French and Swedish envoys. A week later
(September 30), General Peter Lacy, at the head of a Russian army,
appeared on the right bank of the Vistula.
Lacy was speedily joined by the Polish malcontents, who formed
(October 6), under his protection, what they called " a general confedera-
tion," though it consisted of only 16 senators and 600 of the Szlachta.
This phantom of a Diet forthwith proclaimed the Elector of Saxony
King of Poland, under the title of Augustus III, amidst loud acclama-
tions. The Empress Anne had hoped to terminate the Polish difficulty
in a single campaign, but the hope had soon to be abandoned. Almost
the whole of Poland was in favour of Stanislaus, the country swarmed
with his partisans, while he himself lay in the strong fortress of Danzig,
awaiting the arrival of the promised succour from France. He knew his
countrymen too well to expect any material help from their guerilla
bands, and his past experience had taught him that the invasion of
Saxony was the only way to make Augustus relinquish Poland. He
looked to Louis XV to do for him now what Charles XII had done for
him five and twenty years before. Failing this, he felt that all was lost.
" I shall be compelled to return to France if the King does not occupy
Saxony," he wrote to his daughter Queen Marie. On the other hand it
was of "paramount importance to Russia that Stanislaus should be driven,
as speedily as possible, from Danzig, whither help could readily be con-
veyed to him by sea. Accordingly, at the end of 1733, Lacy was ordered
to invest and reduce the place without delay. But it soon became evident
that the difficulty of the enterprise had been vastly underrated. After
leaving garrisons at Warsaw, Thorn (which he captured on his way)
and some other places. Lacy, on sitting down before Danzig, found
that his army had dwindled to 12,000 men, whom he was obliged to dis-
tribute over an area of two leagues swarming with more than 50,000
hostile guerillas, while the numerous artillery of the Danzigers, well
served by French and Swedish gunners, did great execution. All through
the winter the siege dragged on, and no impression seemed to have been
made upon the fortress. On March 17, 1734, Lacy was superseded by
Marshal Miinnich, who brought with him considerable reinforcements.
On the 19th, a strongly fortified redoubt called " Scotland " was captured;
but for the next fortnight the siege languished as the Marshal had no
field-pieces with him but 8-pounders, and the King of Prussia refused to
allow any artillery to be conveyed through his dominions to the besiegers.
1734-6] Siege of Danzig. 197
At one time an actual rupture with Prussia was feared. Miinnich is said
to have threatened that he would pay a visit to Berlin when he had done
with Danzig. He actually wrote to the Empress that Stanislaus had
bought over Frederick William and that the latter was about "to
mediate" at the head of an army corps. At last the arrival of some
mortars from Saxony enabled Munnich to capture Fort Sommerschanz
which cut Danzig off from Weichselmunde, its port at the mouth of the
Vistula (May 6-7) ; but a subsequent attempt to storm the strong redoubt
Hagelburg, the key of the whole position, was repulsed with the loss of
120 officers and 2000 men (May 9-10). On May 20, the long-expected
French fleet appeared in the roads and disembarked 2400 men under the
command of Brigadier La Motte P^rouse. A week later, they made a
gallant attempt to force the Russian entrenchments, but were repulsed
and forced to take refuge behind the cannon of Weichselmunde. This
encounter is memorable as being the first occasion on which French and
Russians crossed swords. On June 10, the Russian fleet, under Admiral
Gordon, brought Miinnich the siege artillery, the want of which had so
seriously hampered his operations, and at the same time vigorously bom-
barded La Motte's little army till it was forced to surrender and was
conveyed to St Petersburg on board the Russian fleet. Two days after
the capture of the French army, the fortress of Weichselmiinde also
surrendered. The loss of its port decided the fate of Danzig. On
June 30 the city capitulated unconditionally after sustaining a siege of
185 days, which cost the besiegers 8000 men. The Primate, Monti, and
Poniatowski were arrested. King Stanislaus, disguised as a peasant, had
contrived to escape two days before.
Even after tiie faU of Danzig the embers of war continued to
smoulder in Poland for nearly twelve months longer. The fugitive
Stanislaus issued, in August, from Konigsberg, a manifesto to his
partisans, urging them to form a confederation on his behalf; and
it was formed accordingly at Dzikowa, under the presidency of Adam
Tarlo, and sent an envoy, Ozarowsky, to Paris to urge France to
invade Saxony with at least 40,000 men, the confederates promising to
cooperate simultaneously on the side of Silesia. In the Ukraine, too.
Count Nicholas Potocki kept on foot a motley host of 50,000 men and
entered into negotiations with the pretender to the throne of Tran-
sylvania, Francis R^kdczy II. But nothing came of these isolated and
therefore impotent efforts. France was iU disposed to waste any more men
and money on a patently unserviceable ally, more particularly as she had
found ample compensation for her reverses on the Vistula in the triumphs
of herself and her allies in Lombardy and on the Rhine. The desertion
of France sealed the fate of the Stanislausian faction in Poland. The
Primate and Adam Tarlo submitted to Augustus; Stanislaus signed
his abdication (January 26, 1736) ; and the Diet which met at Warsaw
(June 25) completed the pacification of the Republic, the new King
198 Accession of Augustus III. [I'se
swearing to withdraw his Saxon and Muscovite auxiliaries within 40 days,
and proclaim a general amnesty.
The new King was, in every respect, the antithesis of his alert, jovial
and dissolute father. His character has been admirably symbolised in
the famous picture which represents the portly Prince, enveloped in a
luxurious dressing-gown, reclining in an easy chair and holding in his
lap a tea-cup and saucer. Pious, pacific, and thoroughly domesticated,
nothing but his one passion, a love of the chase, was ever able to tear
him from the seclusion of his family circle, while a constitutional sluggish-
ness compelled him to leave everything in the nature of business to
Ministers who virtually ruled in his name. Thus, in Saxony, during the
greater part of this thirty years' reign. Count Heinrich von Briihl held
absolute sway, while in Poland the Czartoryski family — " the Family "
as, from its immense influence and political predominance, it was
generally called by contemporaries — endeavoured to rally round it the
most enUghtened and progressive elements of the nation.
The Czartoryskis were of very ancient lineage. They had held
princely rank as early as the fifteenth century and were akin to the royal
House of Jagello which had ruled Poland from 1384! to 1572. It was
only in the middle of the seventeenth century, however, that they had
risen to political eminence in the person of Florian Czartoryski, who
became Primate of Poland during the brief and troubled reign of
Michael Wisniowiecki (1669-73). At the beginning of the eighteenth
century the fortunes of the family were completely reestablished, partly
by the patronage of Augustus H, who exalted them at the expense of the
wealthier aristocracy, but principally through the ability of two brothers,
Prince Michael, who became Grand Chancellor of Lithuania, and was
henceforth known as " the Prince Chancellor,'" and his brother Prince
Augustus, Palatine of Russia {i.e. the Polish province of " Red Russia "),
generally called " the Prince Palatine." These two brothers agreed with
each other in all things, politics included, so absolutely that they must
be regarded as a single personality rather than two separate individuals.
The eminently capable Prince Chancellor was the statesman of "the
Family," and as such was always deferred to without question, while his
brother the Prince Palatine, who had served with distinction in the
Turkish wars of the close of the seventeenth century, and been decorated
for valour by Prince Eugene on the smoking bastions of Belgrade, was its
military celebrity. The marriage in early life of the latter with the
fabulously wealthy Pani Sieniawska, the last survivor and sole heiress of
the united possessions of the Sieniawski and Denhof families, finally
placed the Czartoryskis on a level with the mightiest magnates in
Poland.
The focus of the influence of the Czartoryskis was Pulawy, their
mansion in Volhynia, which became as famous in Polish as Holland
House was in English' politics, and in nearly the same period. Again
1736-53] Rise and predominance of the Czartoryskis. 199
and again, Pulawy is gratefully described by contemporaries as a " refuge
for learning," "an oasis in a desert of savagery." During three generations
it became a training-school of pedagogues, organisers, and reformers.
The most promising youths in Poland, quite irrespective of rank and
birth, were diligently sought for in the most out-of-the-way places and
brought to Pulawy to be educated for the service of their country. The
most advanced foreign scholars and philosophers were consulted as to the
best curriculum to be adopted for the students there assembled. It was
the Czartoryskis who encouraged and assisted the great educational
reformer Stanislaus Konarski, 1700-73 (himself a pupil of a still earlier
pioneer of enlightenment, the ex-King Stanislaus, whose little Court at
Nancy was, for native Poles at any rate, the first nursery of the new
ideas), to establish his Collegia nobilium in Poland. Indeed, it may truly
be said that of the writers on political and social subjects who abounded
in Poland during the latter part of the eighteenth century everyone owed
something to the generous and intelligent assistance of this noble House.
The real aim and explanation, however, of all the efforts of the
Czartoryskis was the reform of the Polish Constitution, which they rightly
regarded as the indispensable preliminary of any permanent improvement
in the condition of the country. To educate, and thereby transform,
public opinion, was the first step towards the realisation of this noble
ambition. It was not enough that the new, saving ideas should be intro-
duced by books and pamphlets — a new social atmosphere was to be created
in which these ideas might expand and multiply. A new generation,
full of courage and free from prejudice, was to be trained up to furnish
the protagonists of the new ideas.
When the time came to translate these ideas into action in the field
of politics, the Czartoryskis, at first, looked for assistance to the Saxon
Court, where, from 1733 to 1753, their credit was very great. They won
the friendship of Briihl by obtaining, though not without great difficulty,
an " mdigenat " or patent of nobility and naturalisation for his family
in Poland ; and, in return for this extremely lucrative privilege, which
opened the door to all manner of honours and dignities, Briihl, so far
as he was able, supported their programme of reform. The period of
comparative tranquillity which immediately succeeded the Peace of
Aix-la-Chapelle (1748) seemed to favour their views. Two advantageous
matrimonial alliances (the marriage of Augustus Ill's daughter, Mary
Josepha, to the Dauphin Louis, son of Marie Leszczynska, and that of his
son Frederick Christian to Maria Antonia Walpurgis, daughter of the
Emperor Charles VII) had greatly elated the Saxon Court, and induced
the King to promise to assist the Czartoryskis to abolish the liberum
veto at the very least. Even when the Court of Vienna, which was first
consulted on the subject, advised strongly against the attempt for fear
of irritating Russia and Prussia, Briihl and the Czartoryskis still per-
sisted in their efforts to remedy this scandalous abuse. All their efforts
200 Efforts of the Czartoryskis to depose Augustus III. [i753-63
in this direction were frustrated, however, by the determined opposition
of the reactionaries, headed by the powerful Potocki family who, having
many ancient grievances against the Czartoryskis, deliberately exploded
every Diet favourable to them, and nullified all their confederations by
coimter-confederations. Then the Saxon Court, fearful of losing Poland
altogether, refused to assist the Czartoryskis any further; whereupon
they broke with Briihl, and began to look elsewhere for assistance. They
now proposed to dethrone the useless Augustus III with the aid of
Russia, to whom, in the first instance, they appealed through Kayserling,
the Russian minister at Warsaw, for help to reform the Polish Consti-
tution, promising, in return, to recognise the Russian imperial title
adopted by Peter the Great and his successors — a thing the Republic had,
hitherto, steadily refused to do. There is no reason whatever to question
the bona Jides, or the patriotism of the Czartoiyskis on this occasion.
But that they should seriously have believed that Russia would consent
to strengthen and rehabilitate her ancient enemy (for that is what their
appeal amounted to) is the most cogent proof of their political short-
sightedness. During the hiu-ly-burly of the Seven Years' War they could
do nothing. Throughout that miserable period the Polish Republic was
treated by all the belligerents as if it did not exist. There was not even
a pretence of respecting its neutrality. Russians, Prussians, and Austrians
marched up and down its territory, fought their battles in it and black-
mailed it indiscriminately without the slightest intention of offering any
sort of compensation. AH that the Czartoryskis did during these years
was to plot industriously against Augustus III. In 1755 they sent their
nephew Stanislaus Poniatowski to St Petersburg in the suite of the
English ambassador, Sir Charles Hanbury Williams, in the hope
that he might gain a diplomatic footing in the Russian capital. The
handsome young fellow won the heart of the impressionable Grand
Duchess Catharine and, in 1757, through her influence, was accredited
Polish ambassador to Russia, from which post he was ignominiously
dismissed, a few months later, by the Empress Elizabeth, for intriguing
against her during her illness. Obviously, the object of this somewhat
mysterious mission was to cultivate the friendship of the aspiring little
Grand Duchess who, four years later, was to mount the Russian throne,
in such a sensational manner, as Catharine II. Immediately after her
elevation, the Czartoryskis formally applied to her for an auxiliary corps ;
but the new Empress, whose own situation, for some months after her
accession, was somewhat precarious, declined to interfere in Polish affairs
till after the death of Augustus III. That event took place on October 5,
1763 ; whereupon the Czartoryskis immediately resumed their appeal to
the Russian Empress. The result of their overtures has been elsewhere
recorded.
201
CHAPTER VIII.
THE WAR OF THE AUSTRIAN SUCCESSION.
(1) THE PRAGMATIC SANCTION.
The great struggle for the Spanish Succession was barely over before
another succession problem began to occupy the Foreign Ministries of
Europe. Like their Spanish cousins, the Austrian Habsburgs found
themselves threatened with a failure of male heirs; and, to meet this
possibility, Leopold I in 1703 had made definite regulations {pactum
vmtuae successionis) by which, in default of male heirs, females should
succeed, with the special proviso that the daughters of Archduke
Joseph were to take precedence of those of his brother Charles. But,
after 1711 Joseph's sudden death had placed Charles on the Imperial
throne, this arrangement was altered in April, 1713 ; and by a secret
family law, known hereafter as the " Pragmatic Sanction," Charles gave
his own daughters priority over his brother's, and at the same time
insisted strongly on the indivisibility of the Habsburg dominions — a
principle now first adopted. In making this change the Emperor was
well within his rights, and circumstances had changed since 1703, when
the renewed establishment of separate branches of the family at Vienna
and at Madrid had seemed probable. Moreover, Joseph's daughters could
hardly claim former Spanish provinces like Milan and the Netherlands
over which their father had never ruled.
It was not till the marriage of Joseph's elder daughter, Arch-
duchess Maria Josepha, to the Electoral Prince of Saxony (1719), that
the question became prominent. Several children had been bom to the
Emperor, but only daughters had survived. Charles therefore exacted
from his niece a formal renunciation of her claims, and a similar pledge
was given by her sister, Maria Amalia, when she married Charles Albert
of Bavaria (1722). Moreover, the Emperor set about obtaining the
formal recognition of the Pragmatic Sanction from the. Estates of his
various dominions, a process begun with Upper and Lower Austria in
1720 and completed by the adhesion of the Austrian Netherlands in 1724
— even Hungary, though after some demur, giving her recognition in 1722.
202 The Powers and the Pragmatic Sanction, [ivas-as
This was an important step gained ; but to secure the recognition of the
European Powers was far more necessary, and by this object the foreign
policy of Charles VI was henceforward dominated.
Curiously enough, the first guarantor of the Pragmatic Sanction was
Philip V, Charles' successful rival in Spain. On hostile terms with
England and Holland, separated from France by dynastic pretensions,
Spain found in the Ostend Company a bond with the Emperor, whose
efforts to shake off the restrictions imposed on the commerce of the Nether-
lands and to obtain a share in the lucrative East Indian trade had embroiled
him with the Maritime Powers. Among the stipulations of the League of
Vienna (May, 1725) was Spain's recognition of the Pragmatic Sanction ;
and the adhesions which the League subsequently received increased the
number of guarantors. Russia (August, 1726) was the next; and, before
the end of 1726 Prussia (October), Mainz and the four Wittelsbach
Electors, Charles Albert of Bavaria, his brother Clement Augustus of
Cologne, and their cousins Charles Philip of the Palatinate and Francis
Lewis of Trier, had joined the League. However, though Bavaria's
support was thus obtained, the somewhat unnatural Austro-Spanish
alliance soon collapsed without having effected anything. Charles Albert,
regarding himself as thereby absolved from his pledge, with the assistance
of the Elector Palatine Charles Philip and the Elector of Saxony,
vigorously opposed the Emperor's efforts to obtain the guarantee of
the Diet. "Kiis, however, was obtained in January, 1732, Frederick
William of Prussia lending the Emperor his support, while in the same
year Denmark became a guarantor, Cologne having renewed its guarantee
in 1731 Long before this, however, Elisabeth Farnese, distrusting the
Emperor's sincerity and seeing no prospect of the proposed marriages
between her sons and Charles' daughters ever taking place, had come to
terms with the Maritime Powers and France, concluding in November,
1729, the Treaty of Seville, by which, in return for a guarantee of Parma
and Tuscany to Don Carlos, she withdrew the concessions promised to
the Ostend Company. To this the Emperor would not agree ; and in
1730 war again seemed imminent, when Walpole, by promising to
guarantee the Pragmatic Sanction, induced Charles VI to give way. The
Second Treaty of Vienna (March 16, 1731) sacrificed the trade of the
Netherlands to the needs of the Habsburg dynasty and to the jealousy
between England and Holland, though France refused to follow her
allies in guaranteeing the Pragmatic Sanction, declaring that to do so
would be as bad as the loss of three battles.
A year later, the opening of the Polish Succession question afforded
Charles an opportunity of disposing of the most formidable of his
daughter's rivals. To win Austria's support in his candidature for the
Polish throne, the Elector of Saxony (Frederick Augustus II, who
became King Augustus III of Poland) abandoned his wife's claims
and recognised the Pragmatic Sanction (1788). But, as the result
1738-40] State of the Austrian monarchy under Charles VI. 203
of her intervention in Poland, Austria became involved in a war with
Prance and her Spanish and Sardinian allies, which went against her both
on the Rhine and in Italy. To purchase the peace which was finally
signed on November 8, 1738, she had to cede the Two Sicilies to Don
Carlos and to agree to the annexation of Lorraine to Fi-ance, the dis-
possessed Duke, Francis Stephen, receiving as compensation Tuscany and
the hand of Maria Theresa. At this heavy price Charles secured from
Fleury an ominously guarded recognition of the Pragmatic Sanction,
Sardinia giving her guarantee in February, 1739, when she acceded to
the peace, an example which Spain and Naples followed later in the year.
Charles had thus attained his object : with the exceptions of Bavaria
and the Palatinate, the Powers of Europe were pledged to support Maria
Theresa's accession, though their assent had been dearly bought. Judging
by the way in which the majority of the guarantors afterwards treated
their solemn obligations, these concessions would seem to have been made
in vain ; yet, indirectly, Maria Theresa's case was strengthened, when she
could appeal to the treaties her assailants had broken : their faithlessness
makes their greed all the more conspicuous and has enlisted on her side
the sympathy of posterity, though in her own day it only helped to
secure her the not altogether disinterested support of England and the
neutrality of the Turks. But, if Charles VI can be justified of his efforts
to secure Maria Theresa from molestation by her neighbours, it is less
easy to refute another charge brought against him — of having neglected
the warning usually attributed to Eugene, that a strong army and a full
treasury would be the best guarantees. In 1740 Austria had neither.
Part of the price paid for the Bussian alliance of 1726 had been a
promise of assistance in Russia's wars with Turkey; and Austria's share in
the Russo-Turkish War of 1736-9 had served to aggravate her internal
disorders and difficulties, already serious enough after the misfortunes of
the War of the Polish Succession. Apart from costing her Belgrade
and the other cessions made to her at Passarowitz, the Russo-Turkish
War left Austria in a sad plight. The evils normally arising from her
lack of unity and cohesion, her obsolete and inefficient administrative
system, her embarrassed finances, and her medieval social organisation,
were aggravated by the inevitable consequences of unsuccessful wars.
The Treasury was all but empty; the revenues had dwindled to half
the income of 1733 ; while expenditure and indebtedness had increased,
and the taxes, at once oppressive and unproductive, were causing
widespread discontent. The army, demoralised by defeat, with its
principal leaders discredited, its ranks depleted to half their paper
strength, urgently needed reorganisation and reforms which the financial
situation forbade. The provinces enjoyed a local autonomy which, though
little more than a survival of feudal and oligarchical privileges, yet was
strong enough to make the control of the central government weak and
inefiective. As the immediate future was to show, provincialism was
204 Maria Theresa and her Ministers. [iV40
stronger than patriotism, even in the "hereditary dominions" themselves.
Hungary, indeed, was a source of anxiety : discontent was prevalent ; an
insurrection was feared, and no trust could be placed in the inhabitants.
Moreover, even Austria itself was not free from disloyalty ; the Bavarian
claim had many partisans; and lack of zeal for the dynasty and of readiness
to make sacrifices on its behalf was only too general
Yet the dynasty was almost the only link between the three groups
into which it is natural to divide the Habsburg possessions — the Austrian,
including Styria, Carinthia, Camiola, Tyrol, and scattered fragments of
Swabia; the Bohemian, with which went Moravia and Silesia; and
Hungary, with Croatia and Transylvania. Each of these had its own
Chancery, its own quite independent administrative, judicial, and financial
systems. There was not even a federal union between them and, apart from
the dynasty, the only institutions common to all three groups and to the
outlying possessions in Italy and the Netherlands were the " State Con-
ference," a council composed of the principal Ministers, the War Council
{Hofkriegsrath) and the Treasury {Hqfkammer). But the control of the
War Council over the army was considerably limited by the difiiculty
of obtaining adequate contributions from the provincial "Estates, and
efiiciency in administration was made almost impossible. Nor was there
in the Conference at the time of Charles VI's death (October 20, 1740)
any man of real capacity as an administrator or with any of the
qualities of a great statesman, and able to make good use of such
authority and influence as the Conference possessed. The inexperienced
girl on whom the succession devolved found among her father's ministers
only septuagenarians who had long outlived the days of their usefulness.
Sinzendorff, the Chancellor who acted as President of the Conference,
had experience but no vigour or decision : selfish and indolent as he
was, neither his character nor attainments inspired confidence, and his
implicit belief in the sincerity of Fleury's professions shows to how
little purpose he had studied foreign affairs. Kinsky, the Chancellor
of Bohemia, and Joseph Harrach, President of the War Council from
1738 to 1763, lacked capacity and strength ; and, though Gundacker
Starhemberg, who had charge of the finances, was honest and patriotic,
with an honourable record of good service, he was long past his prime.
Bartenstein, Secretary to the Conference, enjoyed the distinction of being
only fifty-one and had some of the vigour so conspicuously lacking to
his colleagues ; but he was conceited and opinionated, apt to lose sight of
main issues in a mass of detail, and as much at fault as Sinzendorff" in
his appreciation of the European situation. In the early years of Maria
Theresa's reign Bartenstein's undoubted talents and capacity for hard
work made him the adviser on whom she most relied ; but, as experience
exposed his shortcomings, his influence and authority declined. Indeed,
at the outset of her rule Maria Theresa had really to rely on herself
alone : the husband she loved so dearly proved neither a pillar of strength
1713-40] Economic reforms of Frederick William I. 205
in council nor a capable commander in the field ; and, though in the end
the Austrian army produced some admirable officers, it was not till after
the war that any Minister of more than mediocrity appeared. Indeed,
though Charles VI had not been a strong or successful ruler, though he
had done little to check abuses or effect the reforms of which he realised
the need, though his foreign policy had been ambitious, iU-counselled
and disastrous in its results, though he was inferior both in capacity and
character to his successor, the peculiar circumstances of the moment
made his death as inopportune as possible. Austria's most malevolent
enemy could hardly have selected for her a more unpromising situation
at home and abroad in which to be confronted with a disputed succession.
(2) PRUSSIA UNDER FREDERICK WILLIAM L
Frederick William I ascended the throne of Prussia on February 25,
1713, at the age of twenty-four. His father and mother had main-
tained a Court of great magnificence; but Frederick William had
inherited Queen Sophia Charlotte's good sense without her love of refine-
ment and of tasteful splendour. Immediately on his accession he cut
down the expenditure of the Court so that it scarcely exceeded the
establishment of a wealthy private gentleman. This decision on the
part of the new sovereign almost completely ruined the arts and crafts
of the capital, and several artists of real eminence were compelled
to seek a livelihood in other countries. These rigid economies, which
were carried into all the departments of State, increased the yearly
revenues of the Crown so considerably, that it was practicable to raise
the infantry from 38 to 50 battalions, and the cavalry from 53 to 60
squadrons.
The Great Elector had evolved a model postal organisation, the
benefits of which extended far beyond the disjointed Prussian State.
This postal system of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries operated
like the railway system of the nineteenth; and Justus Moser, one of
the greatest political economists of Germany in the eighteenth century,
maintains that the postal system had extraordinary results and in many
respects transformed the condition of the world. The young King took
all the more interest in this department because it yielded 137,000
thalers (=£"20,000) a year to the exchequer, sufficient for the maintenance
of six or seven battalions. On one of his early morning walks Frederick
William I noticed that the postmaster of Potsdam kept the carrier of
the night mail from Hamburg waiting in the street vainly knocking at
his closed door. The King drove the postmaster out of bed with his
cane, and cashiered him, apologising to the mail-carrier that the King of
Prussia had such remiss servants.
206 Acquisition of Stettin and Treaty of Havelberg. [1713-8
Frederick William had himself learnt obedience when as Crown
Prince he had served under Eugene and Marlborough at Malplaquet.
The King looked up with admiration to his best general, Prince Leopold
of Anhalt, who was then thirty-seven years of age, and hoped with
the accession of his youthful friend to be called upon to take the lead in
political and military affairs. But, when he attempted to put himself
forward, he was very distinctly sent about his business, "Tell the
Prince of Anhalt " — so runs one of the first letters written by Frederick
William as King — "that I am the Finance Minister and the Field-
Marshal of the King of Prussia; this will keep the King of Prussia
on his legs."
Soon after the Prussian Crown had passed to Frederick William I
European affairs took a turn which allowed Prussia to secure an
important territorial acquisition. The Northern War was still in
progress. The representatives of Charles XII (who was away in Turkey),
together with Tsar Peter and his allies, offered Stettin to King Frederick
William I. Frederick William's grandfather, the Great Elector, had all
his life carried on a heroic but ineffectual struggle to wrest Stettin, the
port of Berlin, from Sweden. Under King Frederick William I Prussian
troops seized the emporium at the mouth of the Oder without firing' a
shot ; the sole requirement was the payment of 400,000 thalers (dfi'60,000)
to the Tsar and his allies; and the financial transaction was made
possible by the melting down of the royal plate and other economies.
But this quite exceptionally favourable diplomatic situation did not
continue. Russia, indeed, by the Treaty of Havelberg (May, 1718)
guaranteed Stettin to the King of Prussia, who in his turn guaranteed
to Tsar Peter the acquisition of Ingria and Esthonia, and in certain
circumstances also that of Livonia. So far her intimate relations
with Russia were advantageous to Prussia ; but Peter I next aimed at
making himself master of Mecklenburg. At that point he was opposed
by a counter-alliance formed between England, Hanover, Saxony and the
Emperor. What if Imperial troops set forth to march from Silesia
to Mecklenburg, and Frederick William I, protesting his alliance with
Russia, prohibited their transit ? In that contingency Austria, Saxony,
and Hanover, who had all watched with the keenest envy the strengthen-
ing of the Prussian army, bound themselves to make war upon Frederick
William. The Hanoverian Ministry in particular took up a very hostile
attitude towards the rising House of Brandenburg, and even contem-
plated a partition of Prussia between Hanoverj Saxony, and Austria.
A Hungarian named Clement, who was at the time paying a secret visit
to Berlin as an agent of Saxony, reported that he had heard bitter
complaints how no acceptable posts were now bestowed on anyone but
officers, and how all other persons, especially men of learning, were
passed over, and even well-earned pensions had been cancelled. Clement
concluded that the King of Prussia was not so powerful as it appeared.
1719-22] British overtures. — The King's testament. 207
The discontent generally prevailing, and particularly among business
people and oflBcials, and even in the army, notwithstanding its enormous
privileges, would, in Clement's opinion, make it an easy matter to stir up
a rebellion against Frederick William I. At Court it was considered
that the King's most distinguished general, the Prince of Anhalt, would
with the help of officers devoted to him be capable of dethroning the
King, if Grermany were convulsed by a breach on the part of Prussia
with the Emperor and England — capable of the deeds of a Marius and
a Sulla, as Frederick the Great in his History writes of the victor of
Turin, the founder of the Prussian infantry.
The antagonism between Great Britain and Russia was constantly
growing. In 1719 a British squadron sailed to the Baltic. At the same
time Stanhope, the English Prime Minister, went to Berlin to turn
Frederick William from his alliance with Peter and draw him over to the
side of England. But, though Frederick William acquiesced in Stanhope's
remark that the English had a fine, fleet and he a fine army, and that
these two forces ought to cooperate, he very judiciously decided not to
take part in an English attack on Livonia. All the Powers were soliciting
the friendship of Prussia ; and in 1720, when the danger of a general
outbreak of war was past, the Berlin Cabinet by the intervention of
England and with the connivance of Russia obtained the definite cession
of Stettin by Sweden.
In spite of his physical strength, King Frederick William was subject
even in his earlier years to severe attacks of iUness. At the beginning
of 1722 the thought of death possessed his mind, although he was only
thirty-four years of age. At that time he drew up directions for the
ten year old Crown Prince, in which he gave an account of his own reign
and pointed out to his son the lines he was to follow. " I am at peace
with Almighty God," Frederick William wrote in this so-called testament.
" Since my twentieth year I have put my whole trust in God ; I have
continually besought Him mercifully to hear me, and He has always heard
my prayer." Rulers, the King continues, who have God before their eyes,
and do not keep mistresses, will be abundantly blessed. His successor is to
order himself thus, and plays, operas, ballets, masquerades, and fancy balls
are therefore not to be tolerated, nor excess in eating and drinking, for all
such things are ungodly and of the Devil. So far the King speaks as might
a British Puritan; but the resemblance ceases when he comes to deal
with the standing army, and threatens to withdraw his parental blessing
from his son if he should reduce the military expenditure. Should the
Crown Prince do this, may there come upon him " the curse which God
laid on Pharaoh : may your fate be that of Absalom ! " Later passages
of this document continually revert to the army and bid the King's
successor be indefatigable in his care and discipline of the troops, now
that the King himself has made the Prussian army and artillery equal in
fighting strength to those of any other European Power.
208 Frederick William I's testament. [1723
"You must yourself alone superintend the revenue and keep the
supreme command of the army firmly in your own hands Officers and
officials must know that you hold the purse-strings." For the first six
weeks of his reign the King's successor must, following his own example,
devote himself entirely to the study of the budget; he should then
reduce all official salaries by about 25 per cent., but on no account reduce
the income of the army. In a year's time he may begin to raise again
the salaries of those who are doing their duty. But, he adds, " you must
worJe as I have always done; a ruler who wishes to rule honourably
must attend to all his affairs himself, for rulers are ordained for work
and not for idle, effeminate lives such as, alas, are led by most great
people,"
The King deals next with economic conditions, which, like aU his
contemporaries, he judges from the point of view of mercantilist theories.
" If the country is thickly populated, that is true wealth." Small towns
must be founded where they are wanting. Industries, more especially
the manufacture of cloth and woollen goods, are to be encouraged every-;
where by the Government. "Then you will see how your revenues
increase and your land prospers ! " The French refugees settled there
had first taught the Prussians to become manufacturers in important
branches of industry. " A country without industries is a human body
without life, a dead country, which is always poor and wretched and
never prospers.... Therefore I beg you, my dear successor, maintain the
industries, protect them and tend their growth, establishing them
wherever possible throughout the country," Warnings followed against
listening to flatterers, and ignoring the corruption stiU prevalent among
Prussian officials, and the successor is exhorted to pay all salaries
promptly, to contract no government loans, but every year to pay
500,000 thalers (£75,000) into the treasury. Every year he is to travel
through all the provinces to see for himself that everything is in perfect
order. In religious matters, the chief thing is to build churches and
schools. The Reformed Church and the Lutherans must not be allowed
to quarrel, and only a limited freedom is to be granted to the clergy,
because everyone of them would like to be Pope. The Catholics are to
be tolerated, but not the Jesuits, nor foreign Jews wishing to immigrate.
"My dear successor will think and say: 'Why did not my late father
himself do everything as stated here.?' When my late father died in 1713,
I found the province of Prussia almost at its last gasp with plague and
murrain, most of the domains mortgaged, all of which I have redeemed,
and the finances in such a plight that bankruptcy was imminent, the
army in so bad a way and so low in numbers that its shortcomings
baffle description. It is assuredly a masterly achievement to have in
nine years, by 1722, brought law and order once more as I have done
into all the affairs of State.... The Elector Frederick WiUiam (the Great
Elector) brought prosperity and advancement to our House ; my father
1713-40] Advance of Prussia's position in Europe. 209
secured to it royal rank ; I have regulated the country and the army ;
your task, my dear successor, is to keep up what your forefathers have
begun and to win the territories claimed by us, which belong to our
House by the laws of God and men. Pray to God, and never begin an
unjust war ; but never relinquish what is justly yours."
This memorable testament proves how unjust was the opinion formerly
prevalent in Europe and among historians that Frederick William I
was nothing more than a barbarian with the ideas and gifts of a
sergeant. This conception has doubtless some truth in it, but there is
equally good reason for the verdict of Theodor von Schon, himself an
eminent reformer in the days of Stein and Hardenberg, who described
Frederick William I as " Prussia's greatest King in respect of domestic
policy."
The political situation changed completely soon after the acquisition
of Stettin by Prussia. Though Russia and Great Britain were stiU
enemies, the laitter Power and Austria were no longer allies but bitter
opponents, on account of the Ostend Company. A joint attack on
Hanover by the Austrians and Russians was threatening. Once again,
as had been the case a few years before, the King of Prussia held
a geographically central position between the Great Powers whose
encounter seemed imminent. After considerable hesitation the Prussian
sovereign decided to support Austria; and at the close of 1728 a defensive
alliance was concluded between the two Powers at Berlin.
Besides France, Prussia was at this time the only civilised country in
which an absolute form of government had been completely established.
But it was a convincing proof of Frederick William's great force of
character that between 1713 and 1740 the material resources of Prussia
were placed at the service of the Government in a far fuller measure
than had ever been secured by the French Crown. To the Cabinets of
Europe it was a mystery how the sovereign of a poor barren State like
Prussia was able in 1729 to maintain a standing army of nearly 70,000
men. Added to this, there was a well-filled treasury. Two hundred
years ago a State so organised w£is a Great Power, even though its
population hardly exceeded two millions.
The change in the balance of power in Germany brought about by the
rise of Prussia was extremely unwelcome to George I and to George II,
who succeeded about this time (1727), in their capacity of Electors of
Hanover. On the other hand the Whigs, who dominated the public
life of England, had strong leanings towards Prussia ; and their leaders
complained that the Court was neglecting a Power whose strength had
quite recently doubled. International diplomacy had become so much
alive to the consolidation of Prussia's position as a Great Power that,
when early in 1730 the English were discussing a plan of campaign with
their French allies, they abandoned the idea of an invasion of Silesia,
which could not but have injuriously affected Frederick William's
U. M. H. VI. CH. VIII. 14
210 English marriage negotiations,-" Tobacco College" [i730
kingdom. Instead of this expedition against Silesia, it was resolved
that French troops should join with the forces of several German Princes
at Heilbronn, and thence march through southern Germany, to attack
the Emperor in Bohemia.
King Frederick William was, not without reason, proud that his
internal reforms had given him sufficient strength to be able to
prohibit foreign nations from fighting their battles on North German
soil. " It is no mere boast," he said, " that I have won honour for the
House of Brandenburg. All my life long I have never sought alliances,
nor made advances to a foreign Power. My maxim is to injure no one,
but not to let myself be slighted." Yet, at the same time, his self-
consciousness as to his achievements in the sphere of foreign policy was not
justified to its full extent. His strength lay entirely in his home policy;
in his foreign relations he felt insecure — and rightly so, for he lacked
both sufficient mental training and the inborn gift of perception which
would have made it possible for him to understand the great affairs
of the world.
In 1730 Sir Charles Hotham arrived at the Prussian Court as British
envoy extraordinary to conclude the negotiations which had been
pending five years for the marriage of Prince Frederick, who had in
the meantime become Prince of Wales, with Princess Wilhelmina, eldest
daughter of the King. But his instructions went still further. He was
to propose a further marriage, between the eighteen year old Prussian
Crown Prince and an English princess. Queen Sophia Dorothea, her-
self an English princess, and her children, were strongly in favour of
Hotham's proposals. But a powerful party at the Court opposed this
fresh connexion between the Houses of Brandenburg and Hanover. At
the head of this party was General von Grumbkow, the King's chief
support in his military administration, and financial and commercial
policy. Grumbkow belonged to the " Tobacco College," as it was called,
a party of gentlemen in favour with the King who met regularly in the
evening to smoke and drink beer — practices considered very vulgar by
contemporary European society. Other frequenters of the "Tobacco
College" were Prince Leopold of Anhalt-Dessau and the Emperor's
ambassador, Field-Marshal Count Seckendorf, a Protestant, who played
a curious double role at Berlin as friend of the King and representative
of the Emperor, but took advantage of his position with an unscrupulous-
ness beyond ordinary diplomatic subtlety. Among these associates
Frederick William allowed himself the utmost unconstraint ; unsuspicious
and docile as he was, he thus afforded his generals and officials frequent
opportunities for influencing him and gaining him over to their selfish
ends. But the Court at large was likewise full of intrigues.
Grumbkow and Seckendorf, who were both working in the Imperial
interests, had enlisted the services of the Prussian resident in London,
Reichenbach, for a very base transaction. Reichenbach was in cor-
i73o] The Crown Prince Frederick. 211
respondence with Seckendorf, whom he kept informed as to every
incident in England connected with the marriages; and, worse still,
Reichenbach allowed Grumbkow to decide for him of what the King
should be apprised. He made his reports precisely as the powerful
Minister directed. Thus the King was deceived, for he took as true
and authentic what Reichenbach wrote or Grumbkow transmitted. The
three never tired of representing to the King that England was urging
this double marriage, in order that the little kingdom of Prussia, having
detached itself from the Empire, might be made into an English
province. Frederick William I was not, like his successor, master of
the art of oscillating between the Powers. Frederick the Great owed
his successes almost as much to negotiation as to the sword ; his father,
who was not a whit less eager for the acquisition of territory, did not
know how to lead up to it diplomatically. Frederick William's servants
and friends in the pay of the Court of Vienna scored a success, when,
Hotham having ventured to show the King an intercepted letter by
which Grumbkow was compromised, the unaccountable monarch was
incensed, not with Grumbkow, but with Hotham, and subjected him to
a violent scene. Hotham, who was a proud man, took his departure
without soliciting a farewell audience.
As the testament of 1722 proves. King Frederick William I detested
loose habits of life ; but in other respects he was unable to control himself.
Every man and woman in Berlin to the best of their power avoided coming
across a sovereign who would strike out blindly with his stick, threatenhig
that he would compel his subjects "in Russian fashion" to observe his
edicts. He was on very unfortunate terms with his eldest son, the
Crown Prince Frederick, who in 1730 was eighteen years of age. The
son had a quite different nature from the father's and obeyed him
very unwillingly, showing by his scornful defiance that he felt himself
mentally the King's superior. In return, Frederick William boxed the
Crown Prince's ears in the presence of the household, of the officers of
the Crown Prince's regiment, of the generals — ^in short, of everybody.
Frederick William I was quite convinced that his son, whom he had
detected in youthful excesses and whose taste for French culture seemed
to him sheer idleness, would on succeeding to the Crown do everything
forbidden to him in the testament of 1722; and that his own death would
be followed by the rise in Prussia of a luxurious Court and a costly
rigimeoi mistresses, accompanied by a reduction of military expenditure.
In short, Frederick William anticipated with the accession of his son the
ruin of all that he had called into life and the abandonment of all the
methods of his home government. The conflict between the monarch
and his heir also extended to matters of religion. Frederick William
adhered with all the zeal of a bigot to certain narrow dogmatic con-
ceptions, which Frederick contradicted with witty effrontery. Regarding
the Crown Prince as certain to bring about the moral ruin of the young
cH. viu. 14 — 2
212 The Croxvn Prince's escape frustrated. [i730
Prussian State, the King on one occasion went so far as to say, after
administering a few of his usual cuffs, that, had he been treated so by
his father, he would have shot himself, but that Frederick had no sense
of honour, and would put up with anything.
The unhappy Prince now' formed a rash resolve to escape from his
tormentor, taking flight by way of France to England. He applied for
aid to Sir Charles Hotham and his attachS Guy Dickens; but they
refused it and discouraged the whole plan. Nevertheless, when on a
journey with his father to the south-west of Germany, Frederick made
every preparation for escaping across the Rhine into France. But at the
last moment, at Mannheim, one of the pages of the Grown Prince, who was
involved in the plan of escape, threw himself at the King''s feet and dis-
closed everything. Frederick's chief accomplice had been Lieutenant
Hans Hermann von Katte, a young man of good family, rather older
than the Prince. Most of the aristocracy detested the institutions
of absolutism ; " Court and iarmy teem with unrest," wrote Grumbkow.
The young officer, though barely of age, was pronounced guilty of
high treason, and, after having been for weeks threatened with torture,
was finally beheaded at Ciistrin; the Crown Prince, who was kept a
close prisoner in the fortress, being obliged to witness the execution
from the window of his prison (November 6). Frederick William's pitiless
action was universally condemned abroad, particularly in England ; but
Frederick William defiantly bade his ambassador in London state that
if a hundred thousand Kattes made their appearance he would have
every one of them beheaded. " He would have the English know that
he would suffer no rule beside his own." Frederick William for a time
had serious thoughts of compelling the prisoner at Ciistrin to renounce
his birthright, and of transferring the succession to the Crown to his
second son ; but, as a matter of course, he soon had to relinquish any
intentions of the kind. It was, however, very slowly and with the
utmost reluctance that he submitted to the necessity of resuming normal
family relations with the Crown Prince. For the next few years the
relations between father and son were rather less stormy ; but the Crown
Prince still had so much cause to tremble before the passion of Frederick
William that he often desired his father's death.
The King was greatly incensed against England because the members
of the British diplomatic service had not given information of the
Crown Prince's plan of escape, though they had not furthered it.
Confidently expecting the Austro-English war to break out shortly,
he declared : " I shall not desert] the Emperor, even if everything goes
to the dogs. I will joyfully use my army, my country, my money, and
my blood for the downfall of England." In one of the most elaborate
memoranda extant from Frederick William's hand he writes that he
wishes his relations in London every happiness, " provided it be not at
my expense and intended to upset the whole of my organisation, which
1713-30] Frederick William and the Prussian army. 213
is a stone of offence to these Anglo-Hanoverian gentlemen. My organi-
sation, c'est lapierre de touche.^''
France was at this time reckoned to be maintaining land forces to
the extent of 160,000 regular troops ; the Russian army was estimated
at 130,000 men, the Austrian at from 80,000 to 100,000. Frederick
William, with little over two million subjects, raised the Prussian army
to a total of 80,000. At his accession, in 1713, before the close of the
War of the Spanish Succession, the Prussian army was only 38,000
strong, about equal to the forces of the Kings of Sardinia and of Saxony
and Poland respectively, and, like the troops of these sovereigns, could
only be maintained by means of subsidies from the Western Powers.
Since such payments were only made in time of war, the Prussian army,
imder both the Great Elector and Frederick I, was invariably almost
entirely disbanded on the conclusion of peace. Frederick William I,
at that time the only real autocrat in the civilised world besides the
King of France, followed the example of France in creating a large
standing army which could be maintained from his State's own resources
in time of peace and during a certain number of campaigns. In pro-
portion to the population and wealth of the two countries, the Prussian
army was immeasurably stronger than the French. Consequently, it was
no easy task for the King of Prussia to supply the human material
for his new military creation. He cherished the prejudice that only
tall men were fit to be soldiers. Besides, in his army the troops were
treated much as his own son had been. Whereas in France the punish-
ment of flogging was never inflicted on soldiers and in England its
application was surrounded by protective provisions, in the Prussian
army flogging was as freely used as in the Russian. According to the
King's notions the stick was an indispensable implement of military
education. After his visit to King George I at Hanover in 1725, he
wrote to Leopold of Dessau in high commendation of the impressive
appearance and the many fine qualities of the Hanoverian troops, but
added: "What in my opinion is wanting is subordination; they do their
duty because they delight in it, not from a sense of subordination, for
scarcely a blow can be dealt any man among them under pain of the
King's displeasure. Every private soldier knows this, and yet the army
is in good order ; which greatly surprises me."
At the King's accession there was no conscription in Prussia. The
army was recruited by voluntary enlistment, partly from within the
Prussian monarchy, partly from the rest of Germany, and to a con-
siderable extent also from nationalities speaking their own languages.
As in . other countries, too, when voluntary enlistment yielded in-
sufficient numbers, it gave place to impressment. There is probably
no doubt that this system has never been resorted to in any country
so extensively and so recklessly as in Prussia and in the petty States
of Germany, which through feai- of Prussia had to submit to the
214 Frederick WilUam and the Prussian army. [i7i3-4o
misdeeds of Frederick William's recruiting-officers. It was simply
kidnapping accompanied by bloodshed — a sort of slave-hunting. In
the Rhenish and Westphaliah possessions of the House of Branden-
burg, which consisted of a number of enclaves, young men could easily
escape across the border when pursued by a recruiting-officer. Accord-
ingly there was here a wholesale emigration of young men; and
townsmen and peasants alike were left without serving-men. In the
compact eastern territories the majority of the young men could not
elude the recruiting-officer by emigrating, so that by force or by
stratagem large numbers could be impressed. King Frederick William I
was a very devout man ; but his recruiting-officers were allowed to take
the congregations at Sunday service by surprise and carry off the biggest
and strongest young men. The total of the standing army was so
enormous compared to that of the population, and the methods of
recruiting so harsh, that in many parts of the country there soon began
to be scarcity of labour for tillage and for the harvesting of crops. As
a result, nobility and peasants made common cause against the recruiting-
officers, and expelled them by force. The Estates and the magistrate
expressed apprehension lest the proceeds from the land-tax should
diminish, trade decline, and with it the revenue accruing from the excise.
These representations by the authorities produced some impression on
the King ; for it was the taxes alone that enabled him to maintain the
army.
Frederick William I's views as to the treatment of the recruits won
by earnest-money, or by force and cunning, were quite reasonable in
theory. He demanded of his officers that a young soldier should be
taught everything without railing and abuse, so that a man might not
turn sullen and timid at the very outset. Neither was a recruit to be
beaten or otherwise ill-treated, particularly if he was of a nationality
other than German. But these wise provisions of the regulations
remained a dead letter in the practice of the service. Frederick
William cared rather more effectively for the comfort of the soldiers
than for their humane treatment; but a good deal of what was intended
for the troops was embezzled by the officers, many of whom were stiQ
very corrupt.
Soon after his accession, the King issued an edict declaring that,
according alike to the natural and the divine order of things, the young
men of both town and country were bound to serve him with their lives.
But among the Prussian middle classes the edict met with almost
universal disapproval. According to the conceptions of humanity then
current, it was impossible that public opinion should be in favour of
universal conscription, when discipline was so barbarously enforced in
the army, that during the reign of Frederick William I there were no
fewer than 30,000 desertions, and this in spite of the brutal penalty
of flogging through the line. Moreover, in the King's eyes it was
i'7i3-4o] The "enrolment" system. 215
of secondary importance whether the captains, whose duties included
recruiting, made up the cad/res of their companies by voluntary enlist-
ment, impressment or conscription, provided only the prescribed number
were obtained. At the end of Frederick William's reign half the
army, 40,000 men, consisted of foreigners, while the other 40,000 were
drawn from home. Voluntary enlistment and impressment had been
gradually almost entirely abandoned for the native element in the army,
for these were costly methods and inconvenient to manage. But, without
any cooperation on the part of the King, the captains found a way by
which they gradually succeeded in making conscription acceptable to the
population. Eligible lads were already in their tenth year entered on
the list of recruits for their "canton" (the particular district appropriated
to every single regiment for recruiting purposes). They were given
a bunch of red feathers to wear in their hats, and a pass certifying leave
of absence, and had to take the military oath after their confirmation.
In this way these Enrollirie (enrolled) were familiarised from childhood
with the thought of having some day or other to follow the drum ;
while landowners and parents had time to prepare for the falling off in
labour. In this manner, not as prescribed by the King but as the
result of habit, the edict of universal conscription was in course of
time realised so far as the social and economic conditions of the age
permitted. Very important exemptions from the obligation of service
were allowed ; but they were not strictly enough formulated to protect
the middle classes entirely against the imposition of military service.
Through this loophole most abuses crept in, since the officers liberated
" enrolled " persons from conscription for a money payment, and sold to
soldiers on active service their discharges. Frederick William was aware
how widespread was this extortionary practice among his officers. Just
as Napoleon I organised in France the system of substitution along with
universal conscription, so the practice of buying out of the service existed
under Frederick William I, but in a very crude form. Frederick William
manifestly did not proclaim universal conscription on account of the
ideal advantages attaching to a national army, but only because he
required an expedient for filling up the regiments when voluntary
enlistment and impressment appeared inadequate for this purpose.
The discipline inculcated in the troops alike by the King and by
Prince Leopold was the strictest then in existence anywhere. It can be
stated with absolute certainty that an army so sternly disciplined had
not been seen in Europe since the Roman centurion and his rod had
vanished from the pages of history. The Prussian regulations prescribed
that a soldier who on or off duty abused his superior officer should be
rigorously flogged through the line; in the case of a man on duty, a
single word was sufficient to incur this barbarous penalty. A soldier
who resisted his superior officer or threatened him was shot without
further ado. On the parade grounds at Potsdam where the King drilled
216 Military drill. — The Kin^s republicanism. [1713-40:
his own regiment, the "Giant Guard," and at Halle, where Prince
Leopold's regiment was garrisoned, the men were drilled with incredible
perseverance and success. The Prince of Dessau spoke with justifiable
pride of that "marvel, the Prussian infantiy." Their perfection was
least of all due to the much-vaunted iron ramrod which Leopold intro-
duced into the Prussian army. The strength of Frederick William's
battalions lay rather in the combination of discipline and mobility
imparted to them by infinitely laborious exercises. The troops had
been accustomed by the use of the stick to such absolute obedience that,
even amid a rain of bullets, they would act with machine-like precision
and carry out calmly and surely the elaborate evolutions commanded.
In 1809 Napoleon wrote to Alexander of Bussia that, when they
should have jointly forced England to make peace, they might do
Europe the service of abolishing the system of enormous standing
armies begun by Prussia. This statement of the French Emperor's is
a little biassed, as Louis XIV's was the first standing army of any
dimensions raised since the days of classical antiquity. But it is,
nevertheless, true that, in proportion to the population and wealth of
Prussia, the army of Frederick William I was of enormous size. The
military Powers of to-day oblige at most IJ per cent, of the population
to serve in the army. Frederick William's standing army amounted to
nearly 4 per cent, diuring the three months of the year in which the
soldiers on leave (whose numbers at other times were no doubt very
large) were called in.
The royal Commander-in-chief of this exorbitantly large army
was not completely dominated by the dynastic point of view which still
prevailed in the European Courts. He called himself a Republican,
thereby implying his belief in the idea of the State as the true rule of
conduct for all sovereigns. Putting the genuineness of his religious
feelings to a practical test, Frederick William worked for the good of
his subjects in a way which indirectly became a pattern for a whole
generation of princes. His father's schooling, which was so repugnant to
him, taught the Crown Prince the virtue of application so especially
prized by the royal taskmaster. The father wished to pass for a Re-
publican, and the son designated himself "the chief servant of the State."
Following the example of Frederick the Great, numerous German
Princes applied themselves diligently to the political work which their
predecessors had neglected. Thus the condition of Germany benefited
largely through the change in the spirit of the government introduced
by Frederick William I.
Yet never had a Republican less respect than King Frederick William
for the freedom of his fellow-men. From the nobility he exacted
without any question of exemption that compulsory service which he
could only partially enforce with the people at large. He required all
able-bodied noblemen to serve as officers till their physical powers were
1T13-40] Compulsory service. — The officers' caste. 217
virtually exhausted. The Landrdthe in the several provinces had to send
in lists of the young nobles between the ages of twelve and eighteen ;
whereupon, without more ado, royal orders were issued as to which youths
from each district were to enter the Cadettenhaus (miUtary school) at
Berlin. The Great Elector had broken the political power of the feudal
Estates, and Frederick William turned them into an army-service nobility,
who learned, besides military discipline, that self-subordination in public
matters was a sacred duty. Hitherto, the young nobles of the various
territories which happened to be subject to the House of Brandenburg
had been quite as ready to take military service under alien govern-
ments as under their own. Thus, the East Prussian nobility liked to
serve in the Polish or Danish army, that of Cleves in the Dutch. But,
now that the whole nobUity of .the Prussian monarchy was forced to
undergo conscription, the King gained for his huge army a supply of
officers both numerous and of high quality.
Where the aristocracy resisted this compulsory service, Frederick
William resorted without hesitation to dragonnades and kidnapping of
children. A certain Herr von Kleist of Zeblin in Eastern Pomerania
would not let his son enter the regiment of his district ; and a widow,
Frau von Below, refused to direct her son, who was away in Poland, to do
the same. The King thereupon ordered the commander of the regiment
to quarter a corporal and twelve men on the property of these two
persons until they sent in their sons. In East Prussia boys of good
family were carried off by the soldiery from their fathers' houses and
sent under escort in bands of 18 or 20 to Berlin, where they were placed
in the military school. Peter the Great had in like manner compelled
the Russian provincial gentry to serve as officers. The Kings of France
did not dare to go to such lengths.
In Prussia the officers of the army were the ruling caste, like the
priests in other countries. The King insisted on the fact that he stood on
a far more intimate personal footing with the officers than with the rest
of his subjects. Following his example, the officers treated the official
classes, the learned professions, and the upper middle classes generally,
with a contempt and at times a brutality which rendered the position of
these classes uncomfortable and insecure. Prussia was a polity of officers.
Their numbers were enormous, their service monotonous and very rarely
interrupted by periods of leave. The nobility might console themselves
for the loss of their freedom by the fact that, in the main, they made up
the whole of this officers' polity.
Frederick William was not only the organiser of the Prussian army,
but also the founder of Prussian finance, without a judicious and firm
settlement of which a military State could not have been called into life.
He created the royal Treasure proper. Prussia was not, like England,
France and Holland, in a position to raise war loans ; the subjects of the
House of Brandenburg were too poor to advance large sums ; and foreign
218 Finance. — Immigration. [i7i3-40
countries, generally speaking, refused to give credit. Frederick William
gradually amassed 10,000,000 thalers (d£'l,500,000) in the royal treasury,
in order not to be dependent in the event of war upon subsidies from
the Western Powers, as were the other German Princes, Austria and
Kussia — one and all. The yearly revenue of the Prussian State amounted
at the King's death to 7,000,000 thalers (0^1,050,000). Now, the United
Kingdom in 1905 had an income of about ^Pl 40,000,000 ; hence the ready
money which lay in the vaults of the castle in Berlin meant practically
what a reserve of ^200,000,000 in gold would mean to the British
Government of to-day. No other country in the eighteenth century
possessed an institution combining fiscal and political uses in so peculiar
a fashion. To the Treasury belonged also the silver plate procured ,by
Frederick William to the value of 600,000 thalers (de90,000), after the
inherited silver plate had been melted down and the proceeds used for
the acquisition of Stettin.
In those days a very great deal of the fixed capital in Prussia belonged
to the Crown. Even at the outset of the reign of Frederick William I
a quarter, if not a third, of the peasant vassals consisted of peasants bound
to the royal domains. In order to increase the profits from these domains
and generally to raise the population of the kingdom which was still
remarkably small, Fi-ederick William organised immigration on a large
scale. East Prussia and the Mark Brandenburg were the provinces
which offered the greatest scope to foreign settlers. In 1713 the popu-
lation of East Prussia was estimated at some 400,000 ; under Frederick
William more than 30,000 new colonists came in, of whom by far the
larger proportion hailed from more highly civilised countries, some of
them bringing money with them. There were south Germans and west
Germans, as well as Swiss. The nucleus of the immigration was formed
by 15,000 Protestants from Salzburg, who had been compelled by Arch-
bishop Firmian to emigrate. The other colonists whom King Frederick
William secured were also to some extent victims of religious intolerance ;
but there were likewise many who left their homes for economic and
other material reasons. The King made use of the Dutch Press and
other journalistic agencies to win over the less stable element in any
country within reach. Allowances for the journey, remission of taxes,
timber for building, grants of money, exemption from military service,
and every other imaginable privilege were promised — and good land to
boot. But, in reality, the King took good care not to establish the
immigrants on fertile soil. This he put into the hands of native Prussian
tenants of the Crown possessed of capital, to whom six-year leases only
were granted, so that on the expiration of this short term the rent
might be raised whenever possible. Inferior land on the domains was
for the most part allotted to the impecunious among the colonists ; if
they were hard-working and managed well, the money advanced by the
King soon yielded a very good interest, often 10 to 12 per cent.
1713-40] Fiscalism. 219
It was no doubt the fiscal point of view which predominated when
this civilising movement was set on foot. The immediate object was to
open up the resources of East Prussia so that the land might be able to
contribute more towards the army. A report from the Board of Domains
of East Prussia to the King states that the establishment of the Swiss in
that province had occasioned no great outlay ; for the horses, oxen and
cows supplied to them as an advance in the King's name had been charged
to them at five to six thdlers, whereas they had cost on an average about
three thalers. Hence it came about that many of the settlers who had
been attracted by the King's promises bitterly repented their coming, the
more so as the effects of this fiscal policy were further aggravated by
corruption in official circles. Frederick William would on no account
permit dissatisfied colonists to emigrate again; in fact, he punished
attempts on the part of settlers to get away from their new homes almost
as severely as military desertion. But, despite all distressing accompani-
ments, the resettlement of East Prussia remains a most praiseworthy
proceeding. The province, which lay on the borders of European
civilisation, was raised to a higher plane by the colonists, who were
mentally and morally superior to the original inhabitants. The King,
who never succeeded in raising the revenue to more than seven million
thalers a year, is proved to have expended at least three millions, possibly
much more, on the resettlement of East Prussia. It was a very difficult
matter to transplant thirty thousand country people with south and west
German customs to a distant province of widely different character and
devastated by pestilence, and to settle them so that they gradually
became acclimatised and raised the native population to their own level.
The whole movement was personally organised by Frederick William,
who visited East Prussia on six different occasions for this purpose ; in
accordance with his general practice of constantly travelling through his
State.
The King managed the Crown lands as a farming enthusiast manages
his estate. The farmers-general, to whom he let the several domains for
six years each, administered police and justice on feudal principles over
the "subjects" of the domain. The fees accruing to them from these
prerogatives were taken into account when fixing the rental. So the
masters had a very keen moral sense when it came to punishing all
misdemeanours of the country people; and the fines imposed on the
peasants were far from light, whether for disobedience and remissness in
bearing the feudal burdens or for disorderly conduct and bad language.
The King was cautious in espousing the cause of the distressed
peasantry. No contemporary Prince had a greater sense of his duties
as a monarch towards the lower classes ; but Frederick WiUiam was
anything but sentimental, and with him fiscal considerations almost
always predominated. It was not only the peasant who suffered on this
account, but the nobleman and the burgher likewise. Thanks to their
OB. VIII.
220 TTie royal domains. [1713-40
privileged position, the farmers-general could carry on breweries and
public-houses under the most favourable business conditions, so as to
compete unduly with similar industries on Ritterguter (knights' manorial
estates) or in towns. By the extension or introduction of MiMenzwang,
as it was called, the peasants, whether or not belonging to the domain,
were compelled by law to have their corn ground in the domain mill,
whether they had been previously in the habit of using the landlord's miU,
or hand-mills, as the custom was in backward East Prussia.
By a drastically maintained policy of this kind the King during his
reign of twenty-seven years raised the income from the domains from
1,500,000 to 3,300,000 thalers. A host of civil suits decided by arbitrary
administration of justice in a manner advantageous to the Treasury had
contributed to this very large increase.
At the end of the reign of Frederick William I the Crown lands
yielded, as stated, 3,300,000 thalers; the taxes 3,600,000. This taxa-
tion, in Prussia as on the Continent generally, was borne by the burgher
and peasant classes, the nobility being for the most part exempt. In
East Prussia alone was this privilege denied the nobles; but they
resorted to fraud and bribery. They paid no higher tax for their richest
acre of land than for their poorest, and kept no cattle in order to shift
the burden of the cattle- tax upon the shoulders of the peasantry, which,
being held in bondage, must work for the feudal lords. Any deficiency
in the domestic economy of the landlords was made good by demanding
an excessive amount of forced labour from the peasants. Much land
belonging to the nobles was not taxed at all. The King completely
overthrew this system. The newly introduced General Hide Tax
(Generalhufenschoss) imposed on a large number of the East Prussian
noblemen six times more taxes than they had hitherto paid; fully
34,681 hides of land belonging to the nobility, the existence of which
had been kept secret by the owners, were entered on the tax roll. The
increase in revenue was considerable enough to allow of the formation of
three or fovu: battalions. But, at the same time, owners of moderate
and small properties were sensibly relieved. This was most essential, if
the process of absorption of peasant proprietors by the big landowners
was to be stopped. While in Western Pomerania, under Swedish rule,
and in Mecklenburg the class of peasant proprietors — -living, it is true,
as bondmen, but on their own homesteads — almost entirely disappeared,
a class of landless labourers taking their place, Frederick William I, and
still more his son Frederick II, successfully laboured to preserve the
peasant proprietor in their dominions. In East Prussia not only the
reform of taxation but the settlement of 32,000 foreign country-folk
decidedly contributed to securing for the province a tolerably fair
apportionment of the rural landed property.
Both these Prussian Kings could not but be pronounced opponents
of an excessive growth of large estates, because rural depopulation was
1713-40] Condition of the peasantry. — Taxation. 221
compatible neither with the cantonment system nor with the system of
taxation which in the rest of the kingdom left the nobility untaxed and
in East Prussia still favoured this above other classes. "Tout le pays
sera rume,'" the spokesman of the East Prussian nobility declared, in
opposition to the King, in the course of an attack on the General Hide
Tax. Frederick William replied that it was not the land that would
be ruined, but the authority of the Junkers; the King's sovereignty he
would maintain "like a rocker de bronce.'"
Measured by the standard of the French peasant class of that day,
the social and economic level of the rustic population of Prussia remained,
notwithstanding, very low. The peasants on the Crown lands, who were
better off than those on the estates of the nobility, were often subjected
to forced labour for the Contractor-General for four or more days a
week. Then, besides other feudal burdens, there was the specially heavy
obligation on all peasants to provide teams at the marches and reviews
of the troops, and to supply straw for the camp. To mitigate these
impositions, Frederick WiUiam instituted in particular districts " March
and Burden (Molestien) Funds" which were to be supplied by the
Estates, not by the Crown; but these afforded nothing like complete
relief. Characteristic of the position of the smaller rural landowners is
the principle laid down by the royal Domains Commission in Lithuania,
that a peasant on the Crown lands having an annual net income of
55 thalers cash should keep 20 and hand over the rest to the King. The
subjects of the nobility were, as has been seen, in a considerably worse
plight. It is therefore no wonder that the substitution of agricultural
labourers for peasant proprietors progressed, although, as has been seen,
in a large portion of the kingdom effective restrictions were put on this
movement which were harmful to the community and unwelcome to the
Crown. The French peasants were in almost every respect better off
than the Prussian ; for most of them there was nothing beyond remnants
of feudalism left to bear, and they were constantly acquiring more land.
The urban excise, established by the Great Elector as the financial
comer-stone of monarchical authority, had not been introduced in any
part of the monarchy except the Mark Brandenburg, Pomerania, and
Magdeburg, when Frederick WiUiam came to the throne. He extended
it to East Prussia and the wealthy districts round Halberstadt and
Bielefeld. In the country round Hamm and Crefeld there was a special
form of excise, which treated least effectively those dutiable articles which
happened to be the most valuable. The King exchanged this relatively
unproductive system for that in force in Brandenburg. He likewise
procured fresh receipts by extending the monopoly on salt, introduced
by the Great Elector, to almost the entire State. His system of taxation
was most successful, as he increased the proceeds of taxation from
g,500,000 thalers to 3,600,000.
One of the most powerful levers worked by the King for raising his
OH. vin.
222 The Government departments. [i7i3-40
revenues was the reform of the provincial administration. He adopted
the principle of never stationing an official in his native province. The
Pomeranian, the Brandenburg, and the East Prussian officials and
likewise those from Magdeburg, Halberstadt, Ravensberg, Mark, and
Cleves had, in place of a local patriotism, to cherish the interests of the
Prussian State, which this King had been the first ruler of the House of
Brandenburg to make a reality. Under the stem control of Frederick
William I a growing proportion of the official class learnt honesty — and
they all learnt obedience.
Furthermore, the King completely transformed the organisation of
the government authorities. When he came to the throne, there were
working side by side in Berlin a General Directory of Finance (General-
Jmanzdirectorium), which managed the receipts from the Crown lands,
and a Chief War Commissariat (Oberkriegskommissariat), into whose
chest the taxes flowed. This historic dualism held good in the provinces
likewise, where the Crown lands pertained to the boards of finance, and
the taxes to the commissariat offices. Frederick William merged these
two branches of the administration in one, in order to put an end to
the constant friction between them. In Berlin the Greneral Directory
(GeneraMirectorium) was established as a central administrative depart-
ment ; in the provinces Chambers of War and Domains {Kriegs- vmd
Domanenkammern) were formed. This organisation, instituted in 172S,
remained practically unchanged until the extinction of the old Kingdom
of Prussia in 1807. It formed the nucleus of a bureaucracy which was
the finest in the world after the French, and in the end outstripped its
prototype. The General Directory was divided into four departments,
to each of which belonged a Minister and four or five head officials of
the Treasury (Finanzrdthe).
The King ordained that the members of the General Directory, the
Ministers and Coimcillors, were not to be expected to be distinguished by
special departmental knowledge. Rather, these officials were all alike to
be well informed as to the whole of the affairs of the public administra-
tion. But, in the case of the provincial administrative bodies, Frederick
William I was inclined to allow greater scope for specialisation to the
War and Domains Offices, and the several Councillors of War (Kriegsrdthe)
were each to devote himself to a particular branch of the administration.
But it is impossible here to enter into all the details of importance
in the changes which the Prussian administration underwent under
Frederick William I. Only as to the Councillors of Taxes (Steuerrdthe)
and their functions a word must be said. The Councillor of Taxes was
a Commissioner from the War and Domains Office, who administered six
to twelve small and moderate-sized towns, while large towns had each
a separate Councillor. The Councillors of Taxes took rank after the
Councillors of the War and Domains Offices {Kriegsrdthe), and were
generally chosen from among the officials of the Military Commissariat
Department.
1713-40] Power of the revenue officials. 223
At the outset of his reign Frederick William I encountered a corrupt,
oligarchical municipal government, resembling that which the Municipal
Reform Bill of 1835 amended in England. Frederick William cleansed
the municipalities of much of their ancient corruption ; but at the same
time he almost completely destroyed the self-government of the towns.
The town councils lost the right of cooptation. They might, it is true,
send in to the Government a list of nominations whenever there was a
vacancy on the council; but neither the War and Domains Offices nor the
General Directory took much notice of such lists, and they created only
such people burgomasters and councillors as were in the Government's
judgment capable, honest, and submissive. The municipalities also might
no longer collect their own taxes. If the municipal revenues were not
sufficient for the maintenance of street pavements, fire brigades, foun-
tains, roads, bridges, etc., in the condition prescribed by the regulations
of the General Directory and of the War and Domains Office, the latter
body voted a special grant for the purpose out of the urban excise.
At this point the supremacy of the Councillor of Taxes began. The
municipal budget was under his control; not a groschen might be spent
either in accordance with the regular budget or beyond it without his
knowledge. Town councillors were mostly holders of state appointments
who also served the commune ; but, even if the War and Domains
Office allowed a few councillors to be taken from the merchant class or
some other independent calling, the municipal authorities counted for
nothing at all as against the all-powerful Councillor of Taxes. He had
a hand in everything. He closely superintended the management of the
municipal property and urged on the city-fathers, who were, generally
speaking, slow to move in economic matters, the draining of marshes and
the building of mills, and the construction of brick-yards and sheep-runs
on land belonging to the municipality.
As the income from an important government tax like the urban
excise depended upon the general prosperity of the community in which
it was raised, the Councillor of Taxes had a far wider sphere of influence.
He controlled weights and measures, and superintended the watch kept
over building materials and food-stuffs; the duties on bread, meat, and
beer had to be adjusted in his presence; he had to see that good beer
was brewed; that thatches and shingle roofs were replaced by tiles, and
draw-wells by pumps.
It was the Councillor of Taxes, not the town council, who suggested
to the War and Domains Office which persons should be appointed as
municipal recorders, treasurers, secretaries and other civic officers, when
vacancies occurred. For an inefficient municipal administration would
have been detrimental to the royal finances, not merely to those of the
municipality. Again, in the narrow conditions of life which then obtained
in the towns of Prussia, it seemed to be most important from an
economical point of view that not merely office-holders but, so far as
224 Contest and advancement of trade and industries. [1713-4P
possible, all the citizens should lead moral lives. Otherwise, to begin
with, there was a danger of a rise in the charges for poor relief. This
state of things made the Councillor of Taxes the moral censor of the
whole population of the town. He summoned before him persons who
were leading notoriously wicked lives, admonished them in the presence
of the municipal authorities, and depicted to them in glaring hues
pauperism as the inevitable result of their sins. He was authorised to
banish from the town incorrigible ne'er-do-weels, and under certain cir-
cumstances even to sentence them to imprisonment with hard labour.
Nor was it by any means only the morality and industry of the
proletariat which were taken in charge by the commissioner of the War
and Domains OflGce; he also concerned himself with the way in which
the work at the Rathhaus was distributed — ^whether the city-fathers and
officials were faithfully observing the rules, or whether they were being
lazy and imbibing too much beer and spirits.
The advancement of commerce and manufactures was one of the
chief duties of this representative of the Crown and of Providence. He
must endeavour to attract capitalists and manufacturers to the town.
He was commanded to manage the guilds and to encourage industries.
In the Prussia of Frederick William I these latter were subjected to
government inspection, on the principle introduced by Colbert in France.
The cloth-weavers were told how they were to clean, card, and dress the
wool, and any shortcomings in any part of the technical process were
notified by the inspectors for punishment to the revenue official, who
had to see that there were proper fulling-mills, that the cloth-workers
possessed good modem appliances, and that there were proper arrange-
ments for dyeing. This state socialism even went so far as to impose
upon the Councillor of Taxes the duty of finding employers and constant
occupation for the home-workers among the weavers, and of settling the
scale of wages in consultation with both parties.
This patei;Tial supervision on the part of the Councillor of Taxes
extended to all other industries. Mercantilism met the needs of the age,
notwithstanding the crudeness which marked that economic theory;
and beyond doubt many services were rendered from an economic point
of view by the Prussian Councillor of Taxes. In particular the stimulus
given to cloth-weaving under his auspices was of lasting benefit to the
textile industries of Prussia. The close diplomatic relations between
Prussia and Russia noted above enabled the "Russian Company" in
Berlin to supersede the English contractors of army-cloth for the Tsar's
dominions; and for many years the stuffs used for the uniforms of the
Russian army were woven in the Electoral and the New Mark. The needy
Mark Brandenburg received more than 1,600,000 thalers for these fabrics,
though they were thick and heavy and not to be compared in quality
with the soft English materials; so that the " Russian Company" had to
be wound up when a coolness set in in the diplomatic relations between
Berlin and St Petersburg, and the English textile trade regained the
1713-40] Economical and educational advance. 225
Russian market. But in the meantime the cloth manufacture in
Brandenburg had, over and above the money earned, made technical
progress which was not lost, and there had been an enduring gain of
commercial insight. The cloth- weaving industry of the Mark survived
the loss of the Russian market and flourished anew.
Altogether the economic advance of the country was unmistakable,
though slow — for statistics from which it is sought to deduce a great rise
of prosperity in reality prove nothing. A mercantilist commercial policy
pursued by a monarch with common sense and energy perhaps suited
Germany even better than France, because the national decline of the
seventeenth century had crippled the enterprise of the German middle
class, formerly so alert. Not only was the progress of this policy ceu-efully
regulated from above, but it also received pecuniary aid. The rigid
economy adopted by Frederick William in the interests of the army did
not deter him from making great outlays for productive purposes. It has
already been stated that at least three million thalers were spent on the
resettlement of East Prussia, More than two millions (^300,000)
were divided among the several provinces for municipal improvements.
If a town suffered heavy damages by fire, or by any other serious
calamity, which if not allayed, must entail an appreciable abatement of
the royal taxes, the King would with well-considered generosity open his
purse. He left a specially fine memorial of himself in the Havelland,
where he drained the marshy region of the Luch, employing military
labour for the purpose. Thirty-five square miles were reclaimed for
cultivation, after several large canals, numerous trenches, and more than
thirty dikes of considerable size had been constructed.
The statement that Frederick William made large pecuniary grants
to the subjects of the Crown for his own well-understood advantage, does
not imply that the King incurred these heavy expenses without including,
as a secondary consideration, the furtherance of the well-being of the people
committed to him by God. Many as were the faults attaching to his
character, his piety was sincere, deep, and at the same time practical.
In the testament of 1722 the necessity for founding schools is mentioned
in the same breath with the obligation on the Prussian Government
to build churches. It was this ecclesiasticism (to use the word in no
invidious sense) which gave rise to Frederick William's edict introducing
universal compulsory education. But the Prussian State was not yet
ripe for so sweeping a reform. The edict decreed that the cost of the
compulsory primary schools was to be borne by the parents with assis-
tance from the various communities. In this period the large wealthy
States of western Europe contributed nothing towards elementary schools,
and did not concern themselves at all with this serious problem. If
Frederick William I's edict bore but scanty fruit, nevertheless more was
done under his rule for the education of the masses than under any other
contemporary sovereign.
C. M. H. VI. OH. vm. 15
226 EccUsiastical policy. [1713-40
In everything which this eminently practical monarch seriously
undertook, he was favoured by fortune, so far as internal policy was
concerned. His ecclesiastical policy also proved successful. He wielded
a power over his clergy even more absolute than that in the hands of the
King of France. With the help of the University of Halle, he used this
supremacy to win over the Protestant clergy of his kingdom to pietistic
views. The Pietists were the only jparty in the Protestant Church of
Germany at that time which was not torpid but full of life and pro-
ductivity. Methodism, which was akin to it and which sprang up almost
contemporaneously in England, was rejected by the Established Church
of that country. The English Church accordingly fell into a state of
apathy which lasted for a century, while in Prussia Protestantism
continued active and spread its vivifying spirit among adherents of the
same form of faith far beyond the boundaries of the Prussian monarchy.
Political equality was not enjoyed by religious minorities of that day
in any European State ; and in the dominions of the House of Branden-
btu-g the Catholics were not on an equality with the Protestants. But
the King, if a keen Protestant, was a practical man ; he had Catholic
officers and soldiers, and treated his Papist subjects in general so well
that Rome, which at that period indeed could make no great claims,
was satisfied with him. Of course, in a State so rigorously absolutist as
that of Frederick William I there could be no question of liberty for
the Church, whether Catholics, Lutherans, or members of the Reformed
Church were in question. The King would have liked to effect a union
of the two Protestant confessions. He considered it a step in that
direction to forbid the Reformed ministers to preach on predestinatioA,
while the Lutheran clergy were prohibited from chanting in Latin, or
introducing any music or the use of lighted candles on the altar, during
the consecration of the elements in the Eucharist. They had also to
give up surplices, stoles, eucharistic vestments, and the elevation of the
Sacrament, and were no longer allowed to pronounce the benediction,
crucifix in hand, at the close of the service. In these innovations the
King encountered passive resistance, and he died in the midst of this
difficulty before he had been able to come to a settlement with the
clerical Opposition. Otherwise, the clergy as a class rendered absolute
obedience to him. The submissiveness of the Prussian ministers in all
|)olitical matters was further increased by the doctrines of Spener and
Francke, both of whom considered that the mission of the clergy con-
sisted almost exclusively in fostering the spiritual life and in charity.
King Frederick William I was only fifty-one years of age when he
died, on May 31, 174<0. He was ill-satisfied with the results of his
reign, because all the Cabinets of Europe denied his claims to the duchy
of Berg. Everyone ridiculed the soldier-king, who was constantly pre-
paring for war and never fought. The Austrians thought that half
these Prussian soldiers, trained by profuse thrashings, would desert
1713-40] Significance of the reign. 227
when it came to war. It was not for the last time that the world under-
estimated the strength which Prussia had been quietly building up.
Despite all the repellent traits in his character and in that of a
polity of officers formed in his image, Frederick William remains a
historical figure of the greatest importance. He, and he alone, created
the means by which his son raised Prussia to the level of a Great Power.
If Frederick William succeeded in laying the foundations for the
development which was to follow, he owed his great and lasting achieve-
ments to his earnest piety, unsullied reputation, and eminently practical
ability, and to a steadfast diligence which the pleasures of life were
unable to turn aside from the strait path of duty* Last but not least, we
must remember his scrupulous economy. The economy practised by him
would have been superfluous in other countries ; but the King of Prussia,
a small and poor State, felt that he must carry the exercise of this virtue
so far, that when writing he used to put on over-sleeves to save the
expensive cloth of his uniform. The King was so absolutely possessed
by this idea as to feel that, if his object were to be attained, he must
turn every thaler over three times before spending it.
Ranke rightly observes that Prussia might have advanced on other
lines than those laid down by Frederick William I. As a matter of
fact, Prussia, more than any other State in the world's history, is what
her great Kings have made her. After the death of Frederick William I,
when the various classes paid homage to the new sovereign, they com-
bined with this solemn act the expression of countless grievances and of
the ill-concealed wish that almost everything that had been accomplished
might be annulled. The tone of the officers was not much more amicable
than that of the civilian population. The most distinguished of
Frederick IPs military subjects, Field-Marshal Schwerin, informed the
young King that he regarded as indispensable a more or less complete
return to the system of feudal estates abolished by the Great Elector
two to three generations earlier. But Frederick II was much more of
an autocrat than his father. He staunchly upheld the unpopular in-
stitutions of Frederick William I. Further, on the Prussian people,
or rather on the collection of German-speaking peoples united by chance
under the House of Brandenburg, he imposed two fresh obligations —
the one in respect of home policy, the other in respect of foreign. The
former was a realisation of the ideas of the Avfkldrung ; the latter the
enforcement of the hereditary rights belonging to the House of Branden-
burg over a part of Silesia. Public opinion in Prussia was indifferent to
the Silesian claims of the dynasty, and detested the Voltairean innovations.
But the King had absolute power. He ordered the abolition of torture
and took other important measures in the spirit of the AufM'drvng;
and on the sudden death of Charles VI of Austria on October 20, 1740,
after fruitless negotiations with the Court of Vienna, the Prussian army
advanced into Silesia.
OH. VIII. 15 2
228 Maria Theresa and the Powers. [i74o
(3) THE WAR.
Had Maria Theresa merely been confronted with the prbblefftis of
internal reform which Charles VI had not attempted, or attempted only
to relinquish, her task would have beeb formidable enough. But tiiat
was by no means all: the chief perils lay in the possibility that her
neigh'bours might see in the einbarrassments of Austria a chance of profit;
The desperate eflForts of C!harles VI to induce the Powers of Europe
to guarantee the Pragmatic Sanction are some indication of the dangcir.
The succession of a womaii, especially in the unsatisfactory condition of
the Habsburg dominions, was sure to be the signal for the putting
forward of claims which Charles VI had endeavoured to meet in advance.
As has been pointed out, the most formidable claims were those of the
husbands of Joseph Fs daughters, Charles Albert of Bavaria and Frederidi
Augustus II of Saxony. Those of Spain and Sardinia were less serious,
and only caused anxiety because of the danger of a combination of
claimants against the ill-prepared Habsburg State. Those of petty prin-
cipalities like Wiirtemberg were not deserving of serious consideration.
But it was not only from possible claimants that Charles VI had sought
to obtain guarantees : Powers only indirectly interested in the question
had been induced to give their pledges also; and it was really more
important to see what line Russia and France and the Maritime Powers
would adopt, for if they adhered to their guarantees it was imlikely that
any of the rival claima,nts would endeavour to press their claims. Spain
was already engaged in war with England; Sardinia might fish in
troubled waters, but would hardly venture to disturb an unruified pool ;
Saxony actually promised to help in putting the Pragmatic Sanction into
force ; and, though the Elector of Bavaria declined to acknowledge Maria
Theresa's succession and laid claim to the Habsburg territories, he could
not di^o^e of a force strong enough to push his claims unaided. Indeed^
at first it almost seemed that Maria Theresa was to have an unexpectedly
easy accession. England and the United Provinces, Pope Benedict XIV
and the Republic of Venice, all acknowledged her as the lawful heiress
of the Habsburg lands ; and, though the death (October 28, 1740) of the
Tsarina Anna Ivanovna and the consequent changes at St Petersburg
deprived Maria Theresa of the help which she might have expected froin
Russia had Anna lived, nothing was to be feared from that quarter. The
new King in Prussia, Frederick II, sent most friendly letters, containing
not merely a formal recognition of Maria Theresa but an unsolicited offer
of military help in case of need — conduct which effectually cotacealed his
real intentions and made his subsequent action all the more outrageous.
France did notj it is true, give any formal or definite acknowledgment,
though Fleury spoke in the most reassuring manner to the Austrian
ambassador at Paris, Prince Liechtenstein, ascribing the delay over the
i74o] Frederick II invades Silesia. 229
recognition to the need for research into the proper ceremonial to be
observed. Thus it was only Bavaria whose attitude could be called
hostile ; and the claim advanced by the Elector in virtue of his descent
from Anna, daughter of Ferdinand I, to whose representatives her father
was alleged to have promised the succession in case of failure of his male
heirs, was confuted by the production of the authentic will, showing that
the contingency actually contemplated was the failure of legitimate
heirs.
But, while Bavaria had claims, without the force to render them serious,
another Power had a force so strong as to lend weight to claims which
would not otherwise have been taken into account. Prussia''s pretensions
to the Silesian duchies of Brieg, Liegnitz, Jagerndorf and Wohlau were
mainly important as a cloak under which to attempt to conceal the
ambition and rapacity by which Frederick II was actuated. The
falseness of his friendly professions had barely been suspected at Vienna,
before it was published to the world by the invasion of Silesia by Prussian
troops, 30,000 of whom crossed the frontier on December 16, 1T40.
They found the province quite unprepared to meet this unexpected
attack. The troops quartered in it were much below even its peace
establishment of 13,000, and could only throw themselves into the
fortresses of Brieg, Glatz, Glogau, and Neisse, letting the Prussians
overrun and take possession of the rest of the province, while the capital,
Breslau, hastened to come to terms with the invader.
Simultaneously with his invasion of Silesia Frederick had despatched
Baron Gotter to Vienna to offer Maria Theresa the disposal of his vote
at the coming Imperial election and anued assistance against her enemies,
if she would satisfy his claims on Silesia. Maria Theresa, enraged by
this effrontery, and by the mendacious proclamation in which Frederick
represented to the inhabitants of Silesia that he was acting with her ap-
proval and in her interests, would not listen to Sinzendorff and other timid
advocates of surrender ; she at once set about collecting an army with
which to expel the invaders from Silesia, and appealed to the guarantors of
the 'Pragmatic Sanction for assistance against this unprovoked aggression.
But only England showed any disposition to fulfil her obligations : else-
where Frederick found imitators. Augustus III, after much haggling,
withdrew his recognition, alleging objections to the appointment of
Francis Stephen as co-Regent with Maria Theresa. Spain, Sardinia,
and Bavaria prepared to push their claims ; and, while Fleury continued ]/
to profess friendly intentions, there were among the counsellors of
Louis XV many who urged their sovereign to put a finishing touch
to the work of Richelieu and Louis XIV by seizing this opportunity of
destroying the Power whose dangerous predominance his predecessors had
resisted and reduced. An offer of a defensive alliance put forward by
Frederick at the same time that he invaded Silesia fbund favour at Versailles;
and, though no agreement was at once reached — ^for Frederick promptly
230 Belleisle's mission. — Mollwitz. [i74i
raised his terms — France came gradually round to the side of Austria's
enemies. It was decided that Marshal Belleisle should be sent on a
special mission to Germany, to win over the Spiritual Electors to the
side of Charles Albert of Bavaria and to arrange for Franco-Prussian
cooperation in a personal interview with Frederick (March, 1741).
Meanwhile, the Austrian force charged with the recovery of Silesia
was collecting on the frontier ; but its mobilisation was greatly delayed
by manifold defects in the military administration and by the lack of
money which was mainly responsible for these shortcomings. Before
Marshal Neipperg took the field (March 29), Frederick had been
able to storm Glogau (March 9) and to reduce Ottmachau and other
minor fortresses. But Frederick had not yet realised the importance
of concentration: his troops, scattered to a dangerous degree, must
have been caught and beaten in detail, but for Neipperg's blindness
to his opportunities. Frederick himself at Jagerndorf had barely 4000
men with him ; and, though he was fortunate enough to be able to rally
10,000 more under Kalkstein at Steinau on April 6 and to pick up the
blockaders of Brieg on the 9th, if Neipperg had used his numerous and
excellent cavalry properly, the King might easily have been crushed
before he could have effected these junctions. As it was, the Prussians
had to relinquish their blockades of Brieg and Neisse ; and Neipperg was
actually seven miles nearer Breslau than was Frederick on the morning
of April 10, the day on which the armies met near the village of Mollwitz.
Had the Prussian infantry's fighting capacities been of the same ord^ as
their monarch's strategy, Mollwitz would hardly claim to rank among
decisive battles. Yet such it wa^ for, although the Austrian cavalry,
superior in numbers and in quality, promptly routed the Prussian horse-
men and drove them aiid Frederick with them headlong from the field,
when the victorious troopers turned on the Prussian infantry, repeated
charges on the flank and rear failed to break the steady ranks. Meanwhile,
the Austrian infantry had advanced but could make no head against the
superior artillery opposed to them and the rapidity of fire which their
iron ramrods allowed the Prussians to maintain, and before long
Neipperg's whole army was retreating in disorder on Neisse.
In the history of tactics Mollwitz is remarkable as one of the first
victories of infantry over cavalry, of the combined musket and bayonet
over the arme blanche. It was due mainly to the admirable training and
fire-discipline established by Frederick William I, and it took the military
profession by surprise. Its immediate results were insignificant. The
defeat of the Prussian cavalry prevented any pursuit ; and Neipperg,
retiring to Neisse, took up his position there and maintained it all
through the summer, Frederick making no effort to attack him, though
he resumed the investment of Brieg which fell on May 4. Indeed,
Mollwitz did not seem to have brought Frederick any nearer the direct
conquest of Silesia: it was only its political results which made it
I74i] Bavarian advance on Vienna. 231
decisive. Europe had been watching Silesia, and the Austrian defeat
promised an easy victim to those who had hesitated to strike because
they did not feel certain of success. If Maria Theresa could not oust
Frederick from Silesia, how could she hope to resist a cooperative robbery?
Even before MoUwitz France was all but resolved on adopting the
cause of Bavaria : Belleisle's influence was now predominant, and Fleury
was only restrained from warmly advocating intervention by his natural
irresolution and timidity and by jealousy of the supporters of the
proposal. On March 10 Belleisle set out on his journey, in the course
of which he was able to secure for Bavaria the support of the Spiritual
Electors, though Mainz and Trier had hitherto shown themselves
well disposed to Francis Stephen's candidature. At Dresden he
was less successful, for Augustus III was jealous of his Bavarian
brother-in-law, hated and distrusted Prussia, and was anxious to come
to terms with Maria Theresa, could he induce her to make some
concessions in Bohemia. Nor was Belleisle's first interview with
Frederick, at Brieg about the end of April, any more satisfactory;
Frederick was not an:sious for French intervention and, while determined
to keep Silesia, would have preferred to come to terms with Austria on
that basis. But, although England (hoping to arrange a combination of
Austria, Hanover, Saxony, and Prussia on the lines of the "Grand
Alliance" of William Ill's day) sought to induce Maria Theresa to
conquer her resentment and to secure Frederick's aid against Bavaria
and France, not even Moll witz could shake the Queen. Rather than
make concessions to Frederick, she offered to the Bourbons substantial gains
in the Netherlands, and even made overtures to Bavaria ; but her offera
were rejected, and on the last day of July Charles Albert began hostilities
by seizing Passau. He was able to do this, because on May 18 the Treaty
of Nymphenburg had assured him the active assistance of France, while
by Belleisle's mediation a compact had been made with Spain (May 28)
for the partition of the Habsburg heritage. Moreover, Friedeirick, finding
Maria Theresa deaf to the counsels of England and prudence, fell back
on his alternative and concluded, on June 5j a treaty at Breslau. By
this France guaranteed to- him Breslau and Lower Silesia, in return for
his promise to vote for Charles Albert and his renunciation of all claims
on Jiilich and Berg in favour of the Sulzbach line of the Wittelsbachs
(the representatives of the other partner in the Jiilich-Cleves partition
of 1666), a pledge which helped to secure for the Bavarians the support
of the Elector Palatine.
It was on September 11 that Charles Albert's forces, 50,000 strong,
two-thirds of them French " auxiliaries," began their advance down the
Danube. Upper Austria proved an easy prey ; few troops were at hand
to defend it ; Bavarian partisans were numerous ; and the whole province
submitted with discreditable readiness, nobility and oificials exhibiting
a culpable negligence if not actual disaffection. Vienna was in the
232 Kldn-Schnellendorf. — Charles Albert's mistake. [i74i
gravest peril. Its fortifications and garrison were weak, its population
panic-stricken ; and, though Maria Theresa's dramatic appeal to Hungarian
loyalty had met with a success which justified her confidence as much as
it surprised her Ministers, the succours promised from this quarter were
not yet in the field. So urgent was the extremity that Maria Theresa
had reluctantly to agree to the conclusion by English mediation of the
secret Convention: of Klein-Schnellendorf (October 9) by which she gave
up Lower Silesia, including Neisse, which was ta be surrendered to the
Prussians after a mock siege. At this heavy price, Prussia's neutrality
was secured and Neipperg's army set free.
But Klein-Schnellendorf would have been too late to save Vienna, had
Charles Albert been a strategist. When Neipperg left Neisse (October
16) the Bavarians, despite a quite unjustifiable delky of three weeks
at Linz (September 14 — October 5), were within a few marches of the
ill-prepared Austrian capital. But from St Polten, which he reached
on October 21, the Elector suddenly turned back and, crossing the Danube
at Mauthausen (October S4), directed his march into Bohemia. Military
justification for this step he could not plead; he could gain nothing in
Bohemia that he might not have secured by taking Vienna — the only
possible explanation is that he could not trust his allies and feared they
would forestall him by seizing Bohemia for themselves. He had certdnly
good reason for distrusting Frederick, and Augustus III, who after mmch
vacillation had finally been persuaded by Belleisle to join the coalition
against Maria Theresa (September 19), certainly hoped for part of
Bohemia; but the move not only carried Charles Albert away from
Vienna, the critical point where success might be assured, when tiie city
was absolutely at his mercy — it also exposed Bavaria to a counter-stroke.
For the moment, however, all went well with the Bavarian cause. The
appearance on the Lower Rhine of another French army under Marshal
Maillebois had deprived Maria Theresa of the promised assistance of
George II, who found himself forced by the peril which thus threatened
Hanover to agree to become neutral (September 27), Bohemia, like
Silesia and Upper Austria, was but poorly provided with troops;
the fortifications of Prague were in bad repair, and the Bohemian
nobility somewhat disaffected. Moreover, Neipperg's movements were
so slow that Charles Albert was able to join a French reinforcement
which entered Bavaria by Amberg, and to unite under the walls of
Prague with the 20,000 Saxons under Butowski (November 23), without
any interference by the tardy Austrians. At the instigation of Mam-ice
de Saxe an assault was at once made on Prague (November 25) with
complete success, the Austrians being still fifty miles to the southward.
As after MoUwitz, the fall of Prague was followed by a dead-lock, the
Bavaipians and their allies making no effort to drive the Austrians from
the strong position near Neuhaus to which they had retired, while they^
were content to keep the main army of their enemies in check and so ta
cover operations in progress elsewhere.
1741-2] Bavaria overrun. — Frederick in Moravia. 233
One of the measures adopted by Maria Theresa to provide for the
defence of her capital had been to recall 10,000 men from her Italian
possessions. These, it is true, were liiiely to be attacked before long by
Spain and Naples ; but for the moment the troops could be spared, and
their arrival at Vienna (December) provided a backbone of regulars for
the wild irregulars whom the Hungarian " insurrection " was placing at
Maria Theresa's disposal. Under the competent leadership of Count
EhevenhiiUer and his able subordinate Barenklau, this force took the
offensive with complete success (December 31). The 10,000 men whom
Charles Albert had left to hold Upper Austria were surrounded in Linz
and forced to capitulate (January 24, 1742), after an attempt at relief by
the Bavaiian general Torring had been foiled at Scharding (January 17),
and the Hungarian levies overran Bavaria in all directions. There was
no little irony in the coincidence that on the day of the surrender
of Linz the Diet at Frankfort elected Charles Albert to the vacant
Imperial throne, and that, while the, new Emperor was being solemnly
crowned as Charles VII, Munich was capitulating to avoid being
plundered (February 12). Torring had to retire on Ingolstadt, one of
the very few places in Bavaria which had not passed into Khevenhiiller's
hands before the end of February. But, once again, the course of events
was changed by what was happening elsewhere.
Frederick II had had good reasons for making the Convention of
Klein-Schnellendorf: after ten months' campaigning his army sorely
needed rest, and to obtain Neisse without the labours of a siege was
a great advantage. But it is probable that Frederick made the Con-
vention with the full intention of breaking it when he had profited by it,
and found this coiurse convenient. The insincerity of his attemptsj to
throw on Austria the i^esponsibillty for the failure to keep the Conven-
tion a secret may be gathered from the treaty for the partition of Maria
Theresa's territories which he concluded with Bavaria and hep allies on
October 31 ; and before Khevenhiiller crossed the Enns the Prussians
had invaded Moravia, and (December 26) captured Olmiitz. There for
the moment they rested ; but in February Frederick took the field ag^in
in person, pushing forward to Briinn and laying siege to that town,
while his raiding parties penetrated almost so far as Vienna. In this
operation Frederick had counted on the assistance of his allies; but
only the Saxons gave him any active support — for neither Charles; Albert
nor Marshal de Broglie, now in command of the French " auxiliaries,"
approved of the invasion of Moravia, being anxious to relieve the
pressure on Bavaria by an advance due south. Furious at the inaction
of his allies,, Frederick found the resistance of Briinn more than he could
overcome with the means at his disposal, while the Hungarian light cavalry
operated very briskly against his communications with Silesia, I'hus,
no sooner had the Austrian main army left Tabor for Znaim (April 1)
than Frederick abandoned his attempt on Moravia, moving across into
CB. nil.
234 Battle of Cfiotusitz. [1742
Boheinia, instead of retiring on SileSia. The only eflFect of his attack
on Moravia had been that Khevenhuller had had to detach some 10,000
men to Bohemia, which brought his own operations to a standstill.
Thus reenforced, Charles of Lorraine proceeded to take the offensive
against the French, hoping to bring de Broglie to action before he
could be joined by further reenforcements from France. Partly to secure
this junction, partly to ensure his own retreat if necessary, for his army
was in a bad condition, de Broglie had just detached 10,000 men to secure
Eger ; and between his left and the Prussians at Chrudim there was a gap
into which the Austrians proposed to thrust themselves. But, when on
May 12 the Austrian vanguard reached Czaslau, about two-thirds of the
way from Znaim to Prague, it found the Prussians moving westward,
evidently to hinder the Austrian manoeuvre, instead of retiring northward
over the Elbe, as had been expected. On this. Prince Charles resolved to
seek an action with the Prussians. Had he moved with greater speed,
he might have caught Frederick at a disadvantage, for on the morning
of May 16 there was a considerable space between the King, who was
with his vanguard, and the main body, which was at Podhbrzan. But
an unnecessary halt of twelve hours at Ronnow and the miscarriage of
a night-march, by which he sought to surprise the Prussian main body,
deprived Charles of his chance; while, though in the earlier stages of the
action in which he engaged between Czaslau and Chotusitz on May 17
the Austrian commander gained some advantage, the balance was soon
redressed by the return of Frederick and his division from Kuttenberg.
When Frederick arrived, the Austrian cavalry, as at MoUwitz though
with greater difficulty, had routed the Prussian horse and was chasing
it off the field, while the opposing centres, composed in each case of
infantry, were hotly engaged round Chotusitz. Seeing the left flank of
the Austrian infantry exposed by the absence of their cavalry, he hurled
his division on this critical point ; and his success decided the day. The
Austrians withdrew in good order, though they had suffered 7000
casualties, about a quarter of their force. The Prussians, out of about
equal numbers, lost 5000 all told ; their cavalry, though beaten, had done
better than at MoUwitz ; but so had the Austrian infantry, and Frederick
made no attempt to follow up his success. Indeed, he even remained
inactive while the Austrians, after effecting a junction with the corps
under Lobkowitz at Budweis, resumed the move against the French.
Outnumbered by over two to one and in bad condition generally, the
French were somewhat easily driven in on Prague, suffering several minor
defeats and heavy losses. The garrisons left by them at Frauenberg,
Pisek, and Pilsen surrendered at once; and by the end of June the
remnants of the French invaders of Bohemia were cooped up in Prague,
their communications with their friends in Bavaria having been severed
by the fall of Pilsen.
Frederick's inaction is easily explained. He had fought Chotusitz
1V42] Peace of BerUn. — Maillebob' move. 235
for political not for military objects, and he had gained his end.
Chotusitz added the necessary weight to the arguments of the English
envoys, who were as usual seeking to persuade Maria Theresa to come
to terms with Prussia, All Frederick wanted was the definite cession of
the territory surrendered to him at Klein-Schnellendorf. He had the
less compunction about deserting his allies, because he attributed to
them the failure of his invasion of Moravia. Moreover, the substitution
for Walpole's of a Ministry in which foreign affairs were entrusted to
Carteret promised a more active intervention of England on Maria
Theresa's behalf, and increased his desire for peace. And, for the
moment, Maria Theresa was more eager for revenge on France and Bavaria
than intent on prosecuting the attempt to recover Silesia, which, to judge
&om Chotusitz, was likely to prove a formidable xmdertaking. Accord-
ingly, after some hesitation, it was decided to accept Frederick's overtures,
and on June 13 the Preliminaries of Breslau ceded to him Upper and
Lower Silesia, including Glatz, but excluding Tetschen and TVoppau.
Six weeks later, a definitive peace was concluded at Berlin (July 28) ;
whereupon Saxony also withdrew from the anti-Austrian coalition, having
merely ruined her army and her finances by her effort to plunder Austria.
Prussia and Saxony thus disposed of, Maria Theresa proceeded to
frame schemes for compensating herself for Silesia by annexing Bavaria,
provision being made for the Elector at the expense of France, Her
immediate object was to compel de Broglie and his army to surrender at
discretion, a humiliation France was not less keen to avoid. Diplomatic
measures failing, since Maria Theresa promptly rejected all Fleury's
overtures, the French Ministry had to utilise the army under Maillebois
which had hitherto been keeping George U in check by threatening
Hanover ; for, though Harcourt's French corps and the Bavarians had
gained ground against Khevenhiiller after he had had to detach
troops to Bohemia, they were not strong enough to effect the relief of
Prague unaided. In August, therefore, Maillebois started for Bohemia,
and on September 27 was joined at Bramahof in the Upper Palatinate
by the French corps from Bavaria, which had moved north to meet him,
Khevenhiiller moving parallel and joining the Austrian main body at
Hayd, Charles of Lorraine, on hearing of Maillebois' march, had moved
out to oppose his advance, leaving Lobkowitz and 10,000 irregulars
to blockade Prague. A battle seemed imminent, but none occurred,
Maillebois, after some manoeuvring, came to the conclusion that the
relief was beyond his powers, and decided (October 10) to retire into
Bavaria to take up winter-quarters. Charles of Lorrainej content to
have foiled the attempted relief, made no effort to bring Maillebois to
action and moved southward to the Danube parallel with him. Mean-
while, de Broglie had not taken advantage of the chance of escaping from
Prague afforded by Maillebois' move ; to get away would have been easy,
for Lobkowitz and his irregulars maintained a most inefficient blockade ;
236 Belldslds retreat. — Fall of Prague. — Italy. [1742-3
but the French commander was unwilling to acknowledge the failure of
the invasion of Bohemia by abandoning Prague, and still hoped for
relief. On the retreat of Maillebois the investment was resumed, just
after de Broglie himself had left the town (October 27) to replace
Maillebois in command of the French army about to winter in Bavaria.
That electorate was once again in Charles Albert's hands. After
Khevenhiiller's departure (September), Barenklau had been unable to
hold his ground against Seckendorf 's 15,000 Bavarians, and the Aus-
trians had recoiled behind the Inn, though holding on to Fassau, round
which town and Scharding their main army took up winter-quaiiers
(November), the French being at Straubing, the Bavarians at Braunau.
The chief military event of the winter of 1742-3 was Belleisle's
famous retreat from Prague. Finding relief hopeless^ he managed to
force his way out by the Beraun valley to Eger, which he reached on
December 27, after great hardships and heavy losses. Chevert, left
behind in Prague with 6000 men unfit for the toils of the march, was
able by a threat of destroying the town to obtain a capitulation with
the honours of war from Lobkowitz* (January 21), whose interests in the
town caused him to grant these extraordinarily easy terms^ for which
and for permitting Belleisle's escape he was deservedly blamed. But,
though Belleisle and his army had escaped, all Bohemia except Eger was
again in Maria Theresa's hands; and, if she had had to relinquish Silesia,
she had fair reason to hope to obtain some compensation, for that loss in
the coming year.
1742 had also seen the theatre of war extended to Italy. On the
death of Charles VI Elisabeth Famese had seen a chance of establishing
yet another branch of her dynasty in Italy; and, though Charles
Emmanuel of Sardinia, jealous of Bourbon aggrandisemi^t, pre£»n?ed
assisting Maria Theresa — for a consideration — to joining the Bourbon^
in attacking Lombardy, King Charles III of the Two Sicilies prepar^ito
assist his mother. But he was not ready to move alone; and, as the
bulk of the Spanish fleet had gone to- the West Indies, the English
Mediterranean squadron under Haddock was greatly superior to
Navarro's ships in Cadiz. Thus it seemed as if the Milanese might escape
attack. The decision as to whether this should be lay with France, and
Maria Theresa begged Fleury to refuse the Spaniards passage to Italy by
land. But this he would not do, and when. Haddock having had to
withdraw to Gibraltar to refit, Navarro put to sea (November) and made
for Barcelona, the Toulon squadron under de Court came out and assisted
him to escort a Spanish army to Orbitello in Tuscany, Haddock who was
outnumbered by two to one and imwilling to precipitate a breach with
France, offering no opposition. A Neapolitan contingent joined the
Spaniards ; and, though operations had to be deferred till the spring of
1742, Maria Theresa found her Italian possessions in peril. To save them
she had to come to terms, somewhat distrustfully, with the " Prussia of
Italy."
1742-3] Italy in 1742. — The "Pragmatic Army" 237
Charles Emmanuers action in throwing in his lot with Austria was
dictated by no higher motive than self-interest. He carried on simul-
taneous negotiations with both parties and decided to support Austria,
because he feared the Bourbons more and could get better terms from
Maria Theresa, though the alliance of February 1, 1742, left the question
of concessions to be settled later, and was mainly concerned with military
cooperation. Thanks to the help thus secured and to his own energy
and resolution, Traun was able to ward off the Bourbon menace, actually
taking (June 28) the capital of their ally the Duke of Modena and
causing the Spanish-Neapolitan army to fall back in order to avoid an
action. Moreover, in August the Neapolitans were recalled, an English
squadron having appeared off Naples and threatened to bombard that
city unless Charles III at once withdrew from the coalition. This was
6nly one of the services rendered to the allied cause by the English fleet,
now reinforced and under a zealous and active officer, Mathews, who
forced the Franco-Spanish squadrons to withdraw into Toulon and cut
off sea communications between Italy and Spain. In August a second
Spanish army under Don Philip invaded Savoy, having been allowed a
passage across France ; but it was repulsed from Piedmont (September),
aad., though the invasion called off Charles Emmanuel from the Papal
States, which caused Traun also to retire into the Legations, an attempt
of the Spaniards to follow him up ended disastrously for them at Campo
Santo (February 8, 1743).
One result of the advent of the Carteret-Pelham administration to
^ower had been the despatch to Belgium of some 16,000 British troops
(May, 1742), all that Walpole's neglect of the army had left available.
This force, though reinforced by a Hanoverian contingent, had remained
inactive, a project put forward by Lord Stair for an invasion of France
being rejected by George II, who still posed as being at peace with
France and only a mere auxiliary of Maria Theresa. For 1743, the
Austrians were anxious to get King George aiid this "Pragmatic Army"
into Germany ; and, as George was anything but unwilling, the middle of
February saw the British and their auxiliaries starting on their move up
the Rhine. By May 6 Stair's headquarters were on the Main ; but, just
as it seemed that he was in a position to repeat Marlborough's stroke
of 1704 and push across to Bavaria to catch the French corps there
between two fires, George directed him to suspend the march. Thus the
advantage gained was thrown away, and the sole effect of the move was
to increase de Broglie's desire to be gone from Bavaria. His relations
with his Bavarian colleague were greatly strained ; his army was in no
condition to resume hostilities, and, when early in May Charles of
Lorraine took the offensive, de Broglie left the Bavarians to their own
resources, and, evacuating Straubing and Batisbon, retired up the
Danube to Ingolstadt. Thence, on June 23, he fell back to Donauworth
and, though reinforced by 10,000 men from France, continued his retreat
238 Bavaria evacuated. — Dettingen. [1743
to the Rhine, where he posted his forces round Strassburg and Colmar.
Deprived of French assistance, the Bavarians could not resist Charles of
Lorraine, who cut off a corps, 6000 strong, at Simbach and forced it to
surrender on May 9, stormed Dingolfing (May 19), and Deggendorf (27),
pushed out a detachment which reoccupied Munich on June 9, and finally
forced Seckendorf and the relics of the Bavarian army to conclude a
capitulation at Nieder-Schonfeld, which allowed his troops to retire
into Franconia and become neutralised, but left Bavaria in Austrian
hands. Braunau, Ingolstadt, and a few other fortresses held out ; but by
the end of September they had all fallen.
This success in Bavaria promised well for the recovery of Alsace and
Lorraine ; and Maria . Theresa's prospects were further improved by
the victory won by the Pragmatic Army at Dettingen on June 27.
George II's delay on the Main had not merely thrown away a good
chance of intercepting de Broglie's retreat, but it had given time for the
collection of a fresh army under de Noailles, which crossed the Rhine
near Worms (May 25) and proceeded to plant itself between the Prag-
matic Army and Bavaria. Encouraged by George's hesitation, the French
pushed closer to the Main ; and their cavalry, crossing to the northern
bank of the river, so hampered the foraging operations of the Allies and
curtailed their collection of supplies that the Pragmatic Army found it
necessary to fall back from Aschaffenburg to its magazines and reinforce-
ments at Hanau. It ought never to have got through, for de Noailles
had it at a grave disad van tagej hemmed in between river and mountains,
with enemies in flank, front and rear. But the rashness of a French
subordinate ofiicer and the splendid fighting capacity of the British and
Hanoverian infantry gave George a victory which he neither deserved nor
knew how to utilise. Instead of following up his success, he remained
inactive at Hanau till August 10 ; and, when at last a joint attack on
Alsace by the Pragmatic Army and the Austrians was arranged, the
former force only crossed the Rhine at Mainz to relapse into inactivity
at Worms (August 29^— September 24). Charles of Lorraine was more
enterprising; but, being repulsed in an attempt to cross at Breisach
(Septiember 3) and finding his allies inactive, he took up winter-quarters
betimes in Austrian Swabia.
Diplomatic necessities may to some extent explain the failure of the
Pragmatic Army to utilise its opportunities both before and after
Dettingen. The old fiction that England and France were still at peace
had not yet been abandoned, though Carteret was endeavouring to build
up a strong coalition against France. To that end he wished to detach
Bavaria from France and to reconcile Maria Theresa with the Emperor,
who was then to assist in the recovery of Alsace and Lorraine. However,
Maria Theresa was reluctant to relinquish Bavaria till she had some
other " equivalent " for Silesia, and the " Project of Hanau" broke down,
though Carteret was successful in concluding a definite treaty with
1743-4] Treaties of Worms and Fontainehleau. 239
Sardinia at Worms (September 13) by which Charles Emmanuel was
pledged to assist in the expulsion of the Bourbons from Italy, The
conclusion of this treaty, moreover, committed Maria Theresa to a policy
of hostility to France, one result of which was to provoke in that country
a reaction in favour of the war. France was heartily sick of the Grerman
campaign ; but the threat to Alsace and Lorraine, and the hope of
making acquisitions in the Netherlands which would retrieve Belleisle's
failure in Germany, seemed to have aroused even Louis himself. The
recent death of Fleury (January 29, 1748) had removed that Minister's
hesitation and indecision out of the path of the " forward party," while
Amelot's place as Foreign Minister had been taken by de Tencin, who
concurred with de Noailles and Richelieu in advocating active measures.
Thus, within six weeks of the Treaty of Worms, the Bourbon counter-
blast was issued (October 25) in the shape of the Treaty of Fontainehleau,
the so-called " Second Family Compact." This pledged France to help
Spain in the recovery of Gibraltar and Minorca, to recognise Don
Philip's rights on the Milanese, Parma, and Piacenza, and to declare
formal war on England and on Austria (March 15 and April 26).
But before the formal declaration of war important collisions had
taken place. Cardinal de Tencin's schemes included a vigorous offensive
in Italy, as a prelude to which the blockade established by Mathews
over Toulon must be raised, and an invasion of England on behalf of
the exiled Stewarts, to which end de Koquefeuil's Brest fleet was to
escort 15,000 troops across from Dunkirk. But when de Roquefeuil
had crept cautiously up Channel to Dungeness (February 23)> he foimd
Norris and the Channel Fleet in his way, and only escaped an action
against superior numbers by reason of a sudden and violent gale, which
enabled him to regain Brest without a fight. The invasion project was
accordingly abandoned, its only effect having been to detain in the
Channel ships which would otherwise have reinforced Mathews. That
admiral had meanwhile fought his notorious action with the Franco-
Spanish fleet off Toulon (February 22, N.S.), in which, thanks mainly to
obscure and imperfectly understood signals, the British attack miscarried
altogether and resulted in a drawn battle not very unlike a defeat. But,
despite this and the plentiful crop of Courts-martial to which it gave
rise — Mathews himself being tried and cashiered on a technicality, while
Lestock, his second-in-command and the principal culprit, escaped — the
battle did not give the Franco-Spanish fleet the command of the
Mediterranean, but only opened their communications with Italy for a
couple of months, after which Mathews returned to the Gulf of Genoa
and forbade passage between Spain and Italy.
As their principal objective in 1744 the French had selected the
Netherlands, and their first operations in that quarter quite recalled the
triumphs of Louis XIV. A well-equipped army of 80,000 men, skilfully
directed by Count Maurice de Saxe (the brilliant son of Augustus II of
240 The Austrians in Alsace. — Union of Frankfort. [1744
Poland and Aurora von Konigsmarck), had little difficulty in overrunning
West Flanders, for Dutch neglect had left the " Barrier " fortresses iii an
almost indefensible condition and the Allies had no field army capable
of interfering. They were at odds among themselves, and it was not till
after a diversion elsewhere had called off 25,000 men from Flanders and
reduced Saxe to the defensive that thfey at last took the field (July).
Even then nothing was done ; the Dutch were very lukewarm and still
pt^nded they were not at war with France ; Austria sent but few troops,
leaving the defence of the Netherlands to the Maritime Powers; and
Wade, the British commander, an adherent of false principles of strategy,
would not attack the strong defensive position taken up by Saxe on the
Lys and failed to dislodge him by an aimless and feeble move against
LiUe. Thus the arrival of winter found Saxe still in possession of Menin,
Courtrai, Yprfes, and the other conquests made earlier in the year.
The diversion which had checked the conquest of Flanders was the
Austrian invasion of Alsace. On June 80 Charles of Lorraine and Traun
forced the passage of the Rhine at Germersheim, and Coigni had to retire
by Haguenau on Strassburg, leaving the route into Lorraine open. But,
before the Austrians, as usual somewhat deliberate and cautious, could
follow up this advantage news arrived that on August 7 an ultimatum
from Berlin had reached Vienna, and that the invaders of Alsace must
return to defend Bohemia against yet another Prussian attack. On
August 24 the Austrians recrossed the Rhine and, marching with an
altogether unusual celerity, in a month stood at Waldmiinchen on the
bdrders 'of Bohemia.
Frederick's action was the natural outcome of the policy he had
pursued since the Peace of Berlin. Never quite comfortable in Silesia,
fearing that if successful elsewhere Maria Theresa would sooner or later
tiim her arms against Prussia, he had been negotiating and scheming aU
thrdugh 1743, encouraging Charles VII not to come to terms with
Austria, trying to embitter the Tsarina against Maria Theresa and even
seeking to rouse up the Tm'ks. In May, 1744, his efforts had taken
,shftpe in the Union of Frankfort, by which Prussia, Hesse-Cassel, and
( the Elector Palatine bound themselves together to secure the restoration
J of Charles Albert to his hereditary dominions, the maintenance of the
I Emperor in his rights and of the Imperial Constitution, and the reesta-
blishment of peace in Germany. It is impossible to attach much credit
to Frederick's championship of the Imperial Constitution when it is
noticed that this Union was promptly guaranteed by France, and that
an additional compact with Charles Albert promised Frederick extensive
gains in Bohemia. The net effect of it all was the ruin of the Austrian
attempt to recover Alsace and Lorraine, lost respectively to the Empire
in 1648 and 1738.
Frederick's invasion of Bohemia opened successfully. On August 15
his columns crossed the Saxon frontier ; on September 2 they joined a
l744-5]^ Frederick's invasion of Bohemia, 241
corps from Silesia under the walls of Prague, and on the 16th that city
had to capitulate. Hereupon, Frederick advanced towards the south-west,
hoping to intercept the Austrians retunring from the Rhine and to
catch them between his force and the French, whom he somewhat rashly
imagined to be in close pursuit of them, whereas in reality the French had
tiuned aside to besiege (September 18) and take (November 24) Frei-
burg in Breisgau, and only a small corps had accompanied the Imperial
army, now imder Seckendorf, to Bavaria. Thus Frederick's rash advance
broiight him into some peril. His communications with Prague were
threatened; for the Bohemian peasantry and Hungarian itregulars
swarmed round his camp, while before him was a superior force under
Traun, now reinforced by Batthydny and 20,000 Austrians from
Bavaria, which he was not strong enough to attack. He had to retire
from Budweis to the Sasawa and thence across the Elbe (November 9).
But he could not carry out his intention of wintering on that river;
for Traun, who had been joined by 20,000 Saxons on October 22,
crossed it also (November 19), severed him from Prague, and forced
him to beat a disastrous and costly retreat to Silesia, the garrison of
Prague having to do the same. Traun might congratulate himself on
having completely out-manoeuvred Frederick, though he was perhaps
overcautious in not forcing a pitched battle on the exhausted and
demoralised Prussians. The, only effects of Frederick's move, besides
his loss of probably 20,000 men, were to relieve France; to allow
Seckendorf to recover Bavaria once more, the Austrians retiring behind
the Inn in face of superior numbers; and to intensify the hatred and
disitrMst with which Maria Theresa regarded him, as the man who had
treacherously robbed her of Silesia and had now spoilt a promising
chance of securing an equivalent. For, while Bavaria had again been
lost, her hopes of recovering Naples had been disappointed. Nothing had
been done to foUow up the success of Campo Santo, largely through the
obstruction of Charles Emmanuel; but Lobkowitz, who had taken Traun's
place in October, 1743, had driven the Spaniards back from the Pesaro
to Velletri on the borders of Naples (May — Jufie, 1744), where the
Neapolitans had joined them ; and he was hoping to raise the numerous
Neapolitan partisans of Austria against Charles III, when the news of a
fr^h Franco-Spanish attack on Piedmont caused the return home of the
Sardinian contingent, and compelled Lobkowitz to retire to the Adriatic
and to take up winter-quarters on the lower Po (November). Piedmont,
meanwhile, had been delivered from its assailants by Leutrum, whose
stubborn defence of Coni lasted till winter forced them to withdraw.
Before operations were resumed in the spring, one important event
materially altered the situation. On January 20, 1745, the death of
Charles Albert left the Empire without an Emperor, and gave a finishing
blow to the Franco-Bavarian alliance, already somewhat strained. The
new Elector, Maximilian Joseph, was a mere youth, and there was no
0. H. R. VI. CB, vui, IS
242 Bavaria declares herself neutral-Sokr.-Fontenoy, [i745
prospect of his reviving his father's pretensions to the Imperial throne
which had not much benefited Charles Albert or his Bavarian subjects,
Seckendorf was anxious for peace with Austria ; and, when in March
Batthydny suddenly fell upon the scattered French and Bavarians with
complete success, once again giving Maria Theresa possession of the
electorate, the Bavarian authorities hastened to conclude the Treaty
of Fiissen, by which Maximilian Joseph recovered his electorate on
renouncing all claims upon the Austrian dominions, pledging his vote to
Francis Stephen, and becoming neutral, Hesse-Cassel and Wiirtemberg
promptly acceded to the Treaty ; and, with the Ecclesiastical Electors
again on her side, George IFs vote at her disposal, and Augustus of
Poland deaf to the efforts of France and Frederick II to induce him to
stand for the Empire, Maria Theresa could look forward to the gratifi-
cation of one of her desires, her husband's election as Emperor.
To her other great object, the recovery of SileSia, she was, however,
no nearer. In January, 1745, an attempt to follow up the Prussian retreat
proved a failure ; and, by the time (end of May) that the Austrians were
ready to attempt something more serious than the raids and forays by
their light troops which had kept the Prussians busy but secured no real
advantage, the Prussians had had time to refit and to recover their
moral. Conducted without much skill or vigour, the Austrian invasion
of Silesia met with an abrupt and effective repulse at Hohenfriedberg
(June 4), which Frederick followed up by invading Bohemia. But the
Austrians rallied in a strong position at Koniggratz, which Frederick did
not venture to attack (July), though he maintained his ground at Chlum
on the Elbe for a couple of months, despite the vigorous attacks of the
Austrian light troops on his communications. However, when their
capture of Neustadt (September 16) cut him off from Glatz, he found
himself so straitened for supplies that he had to fall back towards
Silesia by the Schatzlar Pass. The Austrians pursued, profiting by his
delay at Straudenz to get between him and the Pass, and followed up
this success by attacking his camp at Sohr at daybreak (September 80).
The Prussians were undoubtedly surprised, and, had not the Austrian
attack been delivered with excessive regard to orderly procedure, things
might have gone ill with Frederick. However, he ralUed his men and,
concentrating all available force against a hill which commanded his
right, managed to snatch a victory that allowed him to withdraw
unmolested to Silesia.
Shortly before this, Frederick had concluded an important treaty
with George II, who was for special reasons extremely anxious to end
the Silesian wars and so set free the main army of Austria to defend the
Netherlands. There things were going badly with the Allies. Saxe had,
thanks to the failure of the Dutch to cooperate, repulsed Cumberland at
Fontenoy (May 11, 1745), when the Allies' new Commander-in-chief
endeavoured to relieve Tournay; Tournay had fallen after a discreditably
1745] Saxe in the Netherlands. — State of Italy. 243
short defence (May 22); Ghent had been surprised and stormed by
Lowendahl (July 11). Moreover, the Jacobite insurrection in Scotland
(July) had compelled Cumberland to send back to England, in the first
instance, ten battalions of the infantry whom only Dutch misconduct had
robbed of victory at Fontenoy, and then almost the whole of his troops.
In their absence, Saxe had a series of easy conquests in Flanders, including
Ostend, the English base; for the Dutch garrisons made but a feeble
defence, and the bulk of the Austrian forces were in Bohemia or posted
round Prankfort-on-Main to protect the Imperial election against Conti
and the French army on the Rhine. Indeed, George feared that the
French might move against his beloved Hanover, now entirely exposed to
their attacks. Frederick, too, in great straits for money and very nervous
lest success should crown Maria Theresa's efforts to include Russia in
her offensive alliance with Saxony against Prussia, was anxious for any
peace which would guarantee him possession of Silesia. This was the
precise effect of the Convention of Hanover of August 26 : Frederick
bound himself not to vote against Francis Stephen, and the two Powers
guaranteed each other's possessions, Maria Theresa being offered the
opportunity of acceding to the treaty within six weeks. Her wrath at
the offer and the faithlessness of her ally King George was natural
enough ; and she pushed on her plans for the combined attack in which
Russia and Saxony were to cooperate, at the same time seeking to come
to terms with France. Her proposals, which made over to France the
greater part of her conquests in the Netherlands in return for peace
and the recognition of the election of Francis Stephen as Emperor
(September 12), were better than France was to obtain at Aix-la-
Chapelle ; but Louis XVs appetite for military glory had been aroused
by Saxe's successes, and his Foreign Minister, d'Argenson, clung with
more conviction than justification to the Prussian alliance. Hence the
offers were rejected, and d'Argenson devoted his efforts to inducing
Charles Emmanuel to desert Maria Theresa.
The course of affairs had taken an unfavourable turn for Austria in
Italy, Here the adhesion of Genoa to the Bourbons had opened the
Riviera route for the jvmction of the Spaniards and Neapolitans with
the Franco-Spanish force hitherto engaged against Piedmont; and in
July their joint forces, 70,000 strong, moved north across the Apen-
nines, driving the much weaker Austro-Sardinians back before them
to Bassignano. The numerical superiority of the Bourbon forces allowed
of the Duke of Modena being detached against the Milanese. He
took Piacenza (August 6), Parma, and Modena, thus threatening the
communications of the Austrians with Tyrol and causing them to retire
eastward. Left isolated at Bassignano, the Sardinians were severely
defeated by the French (September 27) ; and the end of the campaigning
season found all southern Piedmont in the hands of Marshal Maillebois,
and the Milanese in the possession of his Spanish colleague, Gages. The
OH. viu. 16 — 2
244 Kessekdorf. — Treaty of Dresden. [i745
Habsburgs seemed about to be expelled from Italy, and d'Axgenson's
overtures to Charles Emmanuel were favourably received. But neither
the peril of the Netherlands nor that of Italy could alter Maria Theresa's
determination to make another effort to recover Silesia. Undeterred even
by the withdrawal of Russia at the eleventh hour, she launched her armies
again at Frederick in November, hoping by a move into Lusatia to
push in between Silesia and Berlin. But a check at Gross-Hennersdorf
(November 24) was enough to defeat the move ; and simultaneously a
Prussian force under the elder Leopold of Anhalt-Dessau advanced up
the Elbe against Dresden. To save the Saxon capital, Charles of
Lorraine moved thither by Aussig and Pima, while Frederick marched
across Lusatia to succour his lieutenant. Had the Austrians moved
a little faster, Leopold might have been crushed ; but, as usual, Charles of
Lorraine was slow, and on December 15 the "Old Dessauer" gained a
complete victory at Kesselsdorf over the Austro-Saxon army, which was
endeavouring to cover Dresden. This victory was decisive. Dresden
capitulated (December 18) ; Augustus III acceded to the Convention of
Hanover (December 22); and Maria Theresa found herself with no
alternative but to come to terms with Frederick, since England threat-
ened to discontinue all subsidies if she remained obstinate, while Prance
rejected all her overtures. On December 25, the Treaty of Dresden
definitely ceded Silesia and Glatz to Frederick, who in return guaranteed
the Pragmatic Sanction so far as it related to Germany, acknowledged
Francis I as Emperor, and thus finally withdrew from the War of the
Austrian Succession, alone among Maria Theresa's enemies gaining any
substantial share of her dominions. For this success he had to thank, in
the first place, the army which his father had raised and trained, the
treasure which his father had collected, and the absolute power bequeathed
to him by his ancestors. Secondly, gratitude was due from him to France,
Bavaria and all the other enemies of Austria, whom he had joined and
deserted with equal readiness as it suited his convenience. At the last
moment, when he was nearly at the end of his resources and could ill
have supported another campaign, he had derived important indirect
assistance from the Scottish rising. But, above all, it was his own resource-
fulness and resolution, his promptitude to perceive and profit by the
necessities of friend and foe, his energy, determination, and daringj
which had given him the coveted prize.
If the peril threatening her Italian possessions had contributed to force
Maria-Theresa into giving a reluctant assent to the Peace of Dresden,
she was at least to have the satisfaction of accomplishing her purpose
in Italy itself. Charles Emmanuel had probably been sincere enough in
accepting d'Argenson's overtures, for, though his severely practical mind
was not deluded by the French statesman's favourite but quite premature
project for the federation of Italy, he had no intention of sacrificing his
dominions for the sake of his Austrian ally, and might have come to
1745-8] 2%e end of the war in Italy. 245
terms, had not the rivalry of Sardinia and Spain for the possession of
Lombardy proved an insuperable obstacle to agreement. Elisabeth
Famese's refusal to accept d'Argenson's draft treaty of December 25
caused a dead -lock; and, though d'Argenson, still hoping to win her
consent, agreed to an armistice with Sardinia on February 17, that
concession was only used by Charles Emmanuel to gain time for
Maria Theresa to despatch to Italy a considerable portion of the forces
set free by her peace with Prussia. MaiUebois, lulled into a false
security by a belief that the armistice w£is but the prelude to peace,
was thus completely surprised when, in March, 1746, Charles Emmanuel
threw off the mask. Eleven French battalions were forced to surrender
at Asti (March 8), and the siege of the citadel of Alessandria had
to be raised; while, on the approach of the Austrian reinforcements,
the Spaniards evacuated Milan (March 19) and fell back to Parma,
full of anger against the idealist d'Argenson for allowing Charles
Emmanuel to delude him. But Don Philip could not maintain
himself long at Parma; and, though MaiUebois hastened to his aid,
their joint attack on the Austrian position at Piacenza (June 16)
was disastrously repulsed. This left them in an awkward position, for
MaiUebois' move eastward from Novi had exposed his communications
to the Sardinians, who seized the Stradella Pass and cut him off from
Genoa. JErom this plight the Bourbon forces were only extricated by
the daring of MaiUebois, who struck boldly at the Milanese, drawing
the Austro-Sardinians after him, and then, recrossing the Po near
Piacenza (August 10), broke through to Tortona (August 14) ; whence
by Novi and Savona he made his way back to France (September 17),
abandoning Genoa to the Austrians, to whom it had to submit (Sep-
tember 6). Masters of this important city, and with their Sardinian
aUy no longer in peril, the Austrians would have preferred to renew their
attempt on Naples, had not England, with whose Mediterranean fleet
they were again in touch, insisted on their invading Provence. The
expedition was, however, brought to an abrupt conclusion by an insur-
rection at Genoa (December 5-10), which expeUed the Austrian garrison
from the town and compelled the invaders to recross the Var (February 2,
1747) in order to undertake its reduction. In this task they were aided by
the English squadron; but the Genoese held out stubbornly, and Belleisle,
by attacking Piedmont through the Col d'Assiette, drew off the Sardinian
contingent of the besieging force and so raised the siege (June) ; though
the invaders of Piedmont were repulsed with heavy loss from ExiUes
(July 19) and driven back to Dauphind. With this the war in Italy
practicaUy came to an end, though in 1748 the Austrians had renewed
the siege of Genoa when the conclusion of peace stopped operations.
Thanks to her own energy and courage, and to the assistance of Sardinia
by land and of England at sea, the Italian campaigns had left Maria
Theresa not merely with undiminished territories but in possession of
OH. VIII,
246 Saxe's conquests in the Low Countries. [i746
those of Modena also. That at the peace she had to give up this
acquisition, and also to sacrifice Parma and Piacenza, was due to the turn
the war had taken elsewhere. Italy had to pay the debts of Flanders.
Maurice de Saxe was not the man to miss the opportunity given him
by Cumberland's recall. No sooner had frost made the ground hard
enough for troops to move, than he dashed at Brussels and, after a three
weeks' siege (January 30 — February 20, 174!6)j forced it to surrender. Its
fall was followed by that of Louvain and several other places, and the
effect of the blow was seen when Holland hastened to send Wassenaer to
Paris to negotiate a peace. The Dutch had never been enthusiastic for
the war, and it would have been easy for France to close their ports to
England by allowing Holland to become neutral, in which case, with
Ostend lost, it would have been difficult for the English and Austrians to
cooperate. s/But d'Argenson sought instead to arrange a general peace^
for which England and Austria were not disposed. Cumberland's
decisive victory at CuUoden (April 16) and the Austrian successes in
Italy improved the prospects and raised the demands of the Allies, and
the whole negotiation broke down.
If France was not about to detach Holland from her allies by
a separate peace, the obvious step to take was to make the United
Provinces, as the point where the Allies would concentrate, the objective
of the next campaign. Saxe urged this strongly i but political considera-
tions— the wish not to provoke anti-French feeling among the Dutch or
to imperil the negotiations — caused his scheme to be overruled in favour
of the strategically less sound plan of a reduction of the eastern Nether-
lands. Saxe therefore, after forcing the Allies to retire from the Demer
into Holland (May), detached Clermont to besiege Antwerp, himself
covering the operation. Meanwhile, Conti's army, about 25,000 strong,
was brought down from the Rhine and began operations by besieging
Mons. It could be thus utilised with safety, because all the eflForte of
Maria Theresa and England to build up a coalition among the minor
States of Germany had pi'oved futile. ''Bavaria hired out 6000 troops to
the Maritime Powers ; but the Elector Palatine and Wiirtemberg were
friendly to France, the Spiritual Electors merely cared to keep the war
out of their borders, and the promise of the French envoy at Ratisbon
that France would respect the neutrality of the Empire removed all
chance of operations on the middle Rhine.)
By the beginning of July a fairly respectable allied force had been
concentrated at Breda, including a few English regiments, 6000 Hessians
no longer wanted in Scotland, and considerable reinforcements from
Austria under Charles of Lorraine. On July 17 the Allies took the
field, moving south-eastward by Hasselt to relieve Charleroi, which
Conti was now besieging, Mons having fallen on July 11. Antwerp
too had fallen (May 31), and Saxe was free to move ; but, as Conti
continued his siege instead of joining the Marshal as directed, he could
1746-7] Roucoux. — Fall of d'Argenson. 247
not check their move,; and only the unexpectedly speedy fall of Charleroi
(August 1) extricated Conti from a position of some peril. When
Charleroi fell the Allies had just reached the Mehaigne, whence they
pushed on to the Omeau, taking post to cover Namur. Saxe, with
over 80,000 men to their 60,000, managed to cramp them into a narrow
space in which they were greatly straitened for supplies^ while his
numerical superiority forbade them to attack. Later in August^ the
capture of Huy threatened Lorraine's communications and compelled
him to retire east of the Meuse; whereupon Saxe besieged and
(September 21) took Namur. Thence the French moved on Liege,
on which town Lorraine also recoiled, standing at bay with his left
resting on Liege while his right stretched to the river Jaar, the front
being strengthened by the villages of Roucoux, Varoux and Liers. Here,
on October 11, Saxe attacked the Allies. A well-contested struggle
followed, in which the Dutch infantry somewhat retrieved the reputation
tarnished at Fontenoy, while the British and Hessians were only ousted
from the villages after . a stubborn resistance which cost the French
many casualties. What decided the action was the surrender of Liege,
which turned the Allied left and compelled them to retire. However,
they got off in good order, Saxe making no effort to follow up his
victory. The campaign thus ended with the middle Meuse in his
hands and only Maestricht left to cover Holland. The failure of the
Allies to hold their own is mainly to be ascribed to their numerical
inferiority, due to preoccupations elsewhere, the bulk of the Austrians
being in Italy while the Highlands still absorbed most of the British,
6000 of whom, moreover, though available for Flanders, were wasted
on an abortive attack upon the Breton port of Lorient (September).
For 1747 the Allies determined on a great effort, collecting over
90,000 men, more than half of whom were Austrians and about a sixth
British, while Cumberland took the place of Charles of Lorraine in the
command. However, when in February he attempted a dash on Ant-
werp, lack of transport ruined the design. Saxe, almost without quitting
his winter-quarters, was able to hold him in check while a detached corps
under his capable lieutenant, Lowendahl, took Sluys and Cadsand and
secured the mouth of the Scheldt. Indeed, so negligent and unprepared
were the Dutch that only the timely arrival of some British regiments
prevented Lowendahl from adding Zeeland to his conquests (April —
May). This attack on the territory of Holland marked the final
abandonment of d'Argenson's policy of sparing the United Provinces;
for Louis had dismissed the discredited Foreign Minister (January),
and now announced that he intended to invade the United Provinces
in revenge for the shelter and assistance they had given to his enemies.
One result of this, predicted indeed by d'Argenson, was a movement
in favour of the Orange party, culminating in the election of William
of Nassau- Dillenburg as Captain-General and Stadhblder (May) ; but
248 Itauffeldt— Affairs at sea. ;[i747
this revolution was mainly important from its political bearing and
cannot be alleged to have increased the military strength of the Allies,
After various unsuccessful efforts to entice Saxe from his strong
position between Malines and Louvain, Cumberland suddenly set off
south-eastward (June 26), hoping to fall on a detached corps under
Clermont which was operating along the Meuse. But Saxe was too
quick for him, and a brilliant forced march enabled the French to
forestall Cumberland in occupying the Herdeeren heights just to the
south-westward of Maestricht (July 1). The Allies thereupodt took
post on a lower ridge nearer Maestricht, the Austrians on the right,
the Dutch in the centre, the British and their auxiliaries on the left,
holding the fortified villages of Lauffeldt and Vlytingen. Here, on
July 2, Saxe attacked them. Trusting to the proverbial immobility of
the Austrians, he massed his forces on his right to attack the villages
around which an even and desperate contest waged, the postS' being
several times carried but as often retaken. Indeed, Cumberland's left
a;nd centre were actually advancing to follow up a repulse of the French
infantry when Saxe launched his cavalry at them to give the broken
battalions time to rally. At the critical moment the Dutch gave way
completely, leaving a gap in the line into which Saxe hastened to pour
his reserves, while their flight threw the Hessians and some British
regiments into disorder and paralysed Cumberland's advance. The
Austrians, who were at last coming up to his assistance, baited; the
French infantry rallied and again carried Lauffeldt ; and Cumberland
had no alternative but to retire on Maestricht, General Ligonier and the
British cavalry sacrificing themselves to secure the unmolested retreat of
their infantry. The French losses had been so heavy that Saxe did not
venture to besiege Maestricht, which the Allies continued to cover ; but
they could not prevent him from detaching LSwendahl against the strong
fortress of Bergen-op-Zoom, which he stormed on September 16, the
Dutch defence once again proving half-hearted. With Bergen nearly
all Dutch Brabant passed into French hands, and the campaign closed
with gloomy prospects for the Allies. When the ruler of the Nether-
lands neglected their defence in order to prosecute her designs on
Italy, while Holland was almost as lukewarm in the cause as she was
inefficient, there was little inducement for England to continue a war
in which her expenses were very heavy and her gains quite insignificant^
Though Commodore Warren's squadron and 4000 New England militia
had captured Cape Breton (June, 1745) the French had taken Madras
(September, 1746), and had only been beaten off just in time from Fort
St David (1747) by Commodore Griffin. Again, the victories of Anson
(May 3, 1747) and Hawke (October 14) in the Bay of Biscay had pre-
vented French reinforcements from reaching Canada and the East and
West Indies, and had successfully reestablished England's naval position
and reputation ; but they did not do more than balance Saxe's successes^
1748] The Peace of Aix-la-Chapelle. 249
But, if England and Holland were ready for peace, so were their
adversaries. The death of Philip V (July 9j 1746) had diminished the
influence of Elisabeth Famese, whose aspirations were not shared by
her pacifically-disposed step-son Ferdinand VI; while the recovery of
naval supremacy by England was making itself felt in France through
the heavy sufferings of the French mercantile marine, which was almost
swept from the seas, with disastrous results to the French finances.
Thus, when the Congress of Aix-la-ChapeJle met (March, 1748)
only Maria Theresa, who had at last secured a promise of Russian
a:ssistancej was anxious to continue the War. Enraged at finding the
Maritime Powers resolved on peace, she once again had recourse to
separate negotiations with France ; but, though Kaunitz really believed
that this time success was his, France was negotiating with England and
Holland at the same time and preferred to come to terms with them
(April 30, 1748). Several months of complicated negotiations followed ;
but, finally, on October 18, a definite treaty was concluded between
England, Holland, and France ; Spain adhering to it two days later ;
Bind before the end of November Austria and Sardinia had given
their reluctant assent. Unwilling as Charles Emmanuel was to resign
Finale to Genoa and Piacenza to Don Philip, he was powerless without
English subsidies ; and, while Maria Theresa could bring no pressure to
bear on England she could do nothing in Italy without the Sardinian
army and the English fleet.
The principal provisions of the Peace of Aix-la-Chapelle were those
which guaranteed Silesia and Glatz to Frederick II, the only combatant
who gained appreciably by the contest which his greed and the opportunity
of Charles VFs death had provoked. Charles Emmanuel had to content
himself with the recovery of Savoy and Nice, and with securing another
strip of Lombardy which brought his eastern frontier to the Ticino. Don
Philip secured Parma and Piacenza, with the proviso (cancelled, however,
in 1752) that he should resign them to Austria, if he ever succeeded his
brother at Naples. Otherwise, the Treaty provided for a return to the
conditions prevailing before the War. France evacuated the Austrian
Netherlands and Madras, recognised George II as King of England,
aigreed to respect the Hanoverian Succession, to expel the Pretender, and
to dismantle Dunkirk. England reluctantly gave up Cape Breton, " the
people's darling acquisition," but received a pledge that Spain would
fulfil the commercial concessions promised at Utrecht. The Duke of
Modena regained his dominions ; while, despite Maria Theresa's protests,
the Barrier fortresses were again committed to the proved inefficiency of
the Dutch garrisons. Finally, the Pragmatic Sanction was guaranteed,
except as regarded Silesia and Parma and Piacenza, while Francis I was
recognised as Emperor.
That after eight years of war no greater changes should have been
made is in itself sufiiciently characteristic of the natiure of the struggle
250 Results of the War. [i748
and of the indecisiveness of the result. In some respects, indeed, the
War may be regarded as having achieved something definite. The strife,
between Habsburgs and Bourbons concerning Italy came to an end)
while the territorial settlement of Italy was substantially unaltered till
the Revolution. The acquisition of Silesia by Prussia has endured
unchanged, if not unchallenged. The Jacobites ceased to be a factor
of any importance in European politics. For the rest, the Peace merely
marks a stage in the rise of Sardinia, in the decline of the power and
importance of the United Provinces, in the relaxation of the old alliance
between Austria and the Maritime Powers, and in the intervention of
Russia in western Europe — factors none of them altogether new, but
all destined to develop further. The struggle for maritime supremacy
was, like the Silesian question, left unsettled.
The repeated faithlessness of Frederick 11 filled Maria Theresa with
distrustful uneasiness lest a suitable opportunity might be similarly used,
while desire for revenge was an additional incentive to putting her house
in order with a view to a renewal of the struggle. But, while Austria
had suffered in territory, it may be questioned whether this loss wa§
not satisfactorily balanced by other gains. Hungary was no longer a
cause for anxiety, but for the future was a source of strength; the
War had done much to weld together the Austrian dominions ; Maria
Theresa's unfailing courage and determination had appealed to the best
instincts of her subjects and awakened in them a fervid loyalty which
none of her predecessors had ever aroused; the Austrian army had
been greatly improved; Bavaria and Saxony, no longer rivals, were
now faithful allies ; and the drawing closer of the alliance with Russia
had strengthened Maria Theresa's position. France, on the other hand,
had assisted to place Don Philip on the throne of Parma and to secure
Silesia. for Frederick ; yet these were but poor returns for her efforts and
sacrifices. Fontenoy and Lauffeldt had retrieved the disgrace of Dettingea
and Bohemia — but to have been Frederick's catspaw was of little benefit
to Louis XV. The attempt to partition the Habsburg dominions had
failed, and France had even lost control of her old clients in souths
western Germany, such as Bavaria. Nor had she gained any success in
the struggle with England; her enemy had not only retrieved a bad
start, but had been able to wring from her the restoration of the
provinces which her armies had overrun ; while the War had served to
purge the British navy of the ill-effects of peace and neglect, and had
brought to the front many of the men — such as Hawke and Anson —
who were to carry to a triumphant end the struggle whose renewal was
only a matter of time. For, like the rivals for Silesia, England and
France had suspended hostilities, not because they had abandoned their
ambitions, but because they had exhausted their resources.
251
CHAPTER IX.
THE SEVEN YEARS' WAR.
On January 16, 1756, Frederick II of Prassia signed with England
the Convention of Westminster, one of the most important treaties in
the whole history of European diplomacy. England had been at war
with France since 1755, and the King of Prussia in this Convention
guaranteed the neutrality of Hanover. Thus the French, who had for
many years been united with Prussia in a defensive alliance, found
themselves prevented by their Prussian ally from seizing the German
possessions of George II. The Ministers at Versailles viewed this clause
in a much more hostile spirit than Frederick had anticipated ; and they
forthwith, on May 17, 1756, concluded with the Empress Maria Theresa,
the sworn foe of the King of Prussia, the Treaty of Versailles. This was
a purely defensive treaty, and not designed in aby way to open up to
the French the forbidden road to Hanover. It simply placed France in
an advantageous position, should her former ally at Potsdam put forth
plans which she might feel obliged to thwart at any cost.
The suspicion of the French that Frederick II meditated upsetting
the European balance of power was perfectly well founded. The terri-
torial configuration of what was then the kingdom of Prussia must have
seemed intolerable to a monarch like Frederick the Great, the more so
that the Prussian monarchy included some of the most barren districts
of Germany. Four years earlier, when Frederick had believed himself
to be at the point of death, he had drawn up a political testament for
his successor. There were three territories which, according to this last
will and testament, the King deemed it desirable to acquire by conquest,
namely, the electorate of Saxony, Polish West Prussia, and Swedish
Pomerania ; but of these three Frederick regarded Electoral Saxony as
by far the most important and urgent acquisition, because it would
enable its Prussian conqueror to readjust the shapeless formation of his
State, besides adding wealth, manufacturing industries, and civilisation.
In the spirit of the " cabinet policy " of the times, Frederick II intended
that the Elector of Saxony should be compensated by Bohemia, which
was to be wrested from the House of Habsburg, the irreconcilable rival
of the House of Brandenburg.
OH. IX.
252 AlKances and treaties. [i756
It is true that Austria, in this very year 1766, protected herself, as
will be related at length in a later chapter, by the Treaty of Versailles
just mentioned ; but it only bound France to come to the aid of Austria
with 24,000 men or a yearly subsidy of 4,200,000 gulden (,;e400,000), in
the event of her being subjected to attack. The King of Prussia did not
believe that the French, involved as they were in a war with England,
would make any sacrifice for Austria beyond what was entailed by their
treaty obligations. That Spain would assist Maria Theresa with money
seemed to him out of the question. Since 1748 a defensive alliance had
existed between Austria and Russia against Prussia, but Frederick
reckoned that the Empress could depend even less on her Russian than
on her French allies. St Petersburg was, it is true, as little inclined as
Versailles to allow the King of Pi-ussia to establish his supremacy on the
Continent by further conquests, nevertheless, Russia appeared to be an
uncertain prop for Austria to lean on. The Empress Elizabeth had been
repeatedly ill : Peter, her heir to the throne, was among the most fervent
admirers of Frederick, and Russia's leading statesman, the Chancellor
Bestuzheff, was in the pay of England.
The French diplomatists were never tired of urging the King of
Prussia to abandon the alliance with George II; and Frederick, who
met their representations in a friendly spirit, could easily have taken
this step without breaking his word, for the Convention of Westminster
stipulated for no fixed term. But all the negotiations between Frederick
and the French led to the same insurmountable point of difference.
The precise nature of the gift desired by the King, in return for his
leaving Hanover open to the French, he did not disclose, waiting for the
French on their side to break silence — for they must assuredly know that
his ambition was very far from being satisfied. The Ministers on the
Seine, however, regarded a fresh extension of the Prussian dominions and
the amputation of a second limb from the Austrian monarchy as an
overthrow of the Peace of Westphalia. Any such revolution the Court
of Versailles resolved to oppose, no matter at what cost; and, if its
defensive alliance with Austria did not prove sufiicient for the purpose,
it was ready to proceed to greater lengths. As the King of Prussia
unfortunately could not be induced to break off his relations with Great
Britain, the French Ministers intimated to the Austrian ambassador at
Versailles, Count Starhemberg, their readiness to accept in principle the
offensive alliance against Prussia for which the Court of Vienna had long
been agitating.
Count Kaunitz, Maria Theresa's Chancellor of State, urged the
offensive alliance against Prussia, not solely with the object of recon-
quering Silesia, but because he knew that Frederick was only waiting
for the most favourable opportunity to mutilate the Austrian monarchy
a second time. Desirous of forestalling such an enterprise at a con-
venient season for Austria, Kaunitz believed that the hour had now
1756] Russian armaments. — Frederick's preparations. 263
come. In March, 175G, he informed the Russian Court that France
was prepared, to enter into an offensive Coalition against Prussia, and
enquired whether, in the case of Russia intending to join it, the Tsarina's
troops would perhaps be able to march even before the year (17S6) was
out. In reply, the Russian Ministry signified their readiness to send an
army into the field against Prussia at so early a date as August, 1756.
Russia was absolutely in earnest in this intention ; and the army designed
to encounter Frederick was without loss of time moved towards the
western frontier of the Tsar's dominions. But scarcely had the Russian
marching columns been set in motion, when a serious crisis occurred iii
the Franco- Austrian negotiations at Versailles. On May 22, 1756, Kaunitz
wrote to the Austrian ambassador at St Petersburg, Count Esterh^^,
that Frederick II " was exhausting himself with lavish caresses oil the
French." The Treaty of Versailles, he said, afforded no absolute protec-
tion to Austria against the contingency of Prussia and France renewing
their alliance. Meanwhile, Russia ought to desist from provocative war
preparations, and so far as possible to disarm. At St Petersburg, the
march of the Russian forces was instantly countermanded;' but a
Russian Note dated June 10 reproached the Viennese Court in terms of
no little irritation for forcing the Tsarina's Government to issue the
unnecessary orders.
It was an unpleasant surprise for Frederick to find that English
influence and gold had no effect in restraining the Court of St
Petersburg from hostility to Prussia. But it seemed to him of greater
importance that he now had the pretext for war which he needed in
face of England, and indeed of the world. An English courier who, on
his way from St Petersburg to London, passed through Berlin, related
that he had seen all the roads in Livonia full of soldiers, and that
170,000 regulars and 70,000 Cossacks were marching against Prussia.
Frederick, hereupon, began immediately to make preparations for war
on his side. On June 25, he informed his ambassador in Vienna that
he began to regard war as inevitable. To his sister Wilhelmina at
Baireuth he wrote about the same time: "We have one foot in the
stirrup, and I think the other will soon foUow." Notwithstanding the
countermanding of the Russian advance, Frederick's preparations were
continued till more than half the Prussian army was mobilised. It can
be shown that political and not military motives lay at the root of this
semi-mobilisation: some of the cross- and counter-marches for which
orders were given at the time had no object but that of sounding an
alarm in order to force Austria into warlike measures which might
furnish to Prussia an excuse for attacking. For, as a matter of fact, it
is out of the question that Frederick should have felt himself menaced.
He knew, of course, that something was in progress against him, but he
also knew that he had no reason for apprehending within measurable
time the conclusion of an offensive alliance against Prussia. From certain
OH. IX,
254 . Attitude of Austria. — Invasion of Saxony. [i756
documents, the contents of which the Saxon govemmfent clerk Menzel
was bribed to betray to the King, it came out that in St Petersburg
English and French influences were still contending.
As the King of Prussia, notwithstanding, was making preparations
for war, the Empress Maria Theresa's private secretary, Baron Koch,
urged Kaunitz to permit a few military precautions to be taken against
a Prussian surprise ; and Field-Marshal Browne, who held the command
in Bohemia, attempted to influence the Chancellor in the same direction.
But Kaunitz would not listen to the suggestions of these dignitaries.
Premature preparations for war, he observed, might spoil everything,
inasmuch as the negotiations with France did not yet inspire sufficient
confidence. As he took care to explain, the ultimiate purpose imputed
by the Protestant party in the Empire to the Convention of West-
minster was the establishment of a Protestant Germanic Empire with
the House of Brandenburg at its head. The French, like everyone else
in that age, believed that the era of religious warfare had not yet finally
closed, and credited Frederick with the design of reopening it. Thus,
the Convention which had united Prussia, England, Hanover, Hesse,
and Brunswick, was at Versailles regarded in the light of a Protestant
league. The truth was that nothing was further from the mind of
the sceptic of Sanssouci than the wish to pose as the champion of
Protestantism in Germany. Such weapons, he wrote once to d'Argens,
were obsolete ; no one, not even women, could any longer be roused to
fanatical enthusiasm on behalf of Luther or Calvin. For all this, the
King was anxious to conquer, in addition to Saxony, the territory of
the Bishop of Hildesheim and, in general, to secularise the ecclesiastical
States of northern Germany. He believed that he did not need for this
object the assistance of religious ideas, but that he could rely on the
material power of his absolute Crown.
The diplomatic adviser of Madame de Pompadour, Abb^ Bemis,
gave Count Starhemberg to understand that, if Austria met the prepare?
tions of Prussia with the necessary counter-measures, France would not
hold her responsible for the consequences. The Court of Vienna, with-
out quite trusting the Abbe's promise, now began to place its army, on
a war footing. Hereupon, the King of Pmssia, on July 18, enquired
iat Vienna whether the Empress' preparations were directed against
himself. When the relations between two great Powers once pass into
this stage, there is never much hope of successful negotiation ; and the
pourparlers between the King and the Empress proved fruitless.
On August 29, 1756, the Prussian army moved into Saxony.
Frederick called upon the Elector Frederick Augustus II to become lus
ally. At the outset, so the neighbour whom he had suddenly invaded
was informed by Fredericlc, appearances might be against him ; but, on
his honour, he would regard the Elector's interests as sacred, if he would
join with Prussia against Austria, To an envoy from Frederick Augustus
1756-7] Capitulation of Pima. — Winter quarters. 255
the King declared : " If fortune favours me, the Elector will not only be
amply compensated for everything, but I shall take as much thought
for his interests as for my own," Frederick Augustus, however, declined
to take advantage of this unscrupulous assignment of the Bohemian
jewel in Maria Theresa's Crown, and retired into his kingdom of Poland.
The small Saxon army was shut up by the Prussians in the entrenched
camp of Pirna. Field-Marshal Browne hereupon advanced to the relief
of Saxony; and Frederick fell in with his troops on October 1, at
Lobositz, in Bohemian territory not far from the Saxon frontier.
The King of Prussia had pushed on his forces with so much Ham,
that they assumed the offensive even before he had positively issued
his command to attack. A thick mist prevented him from reconnoitring.
When the sky cleared, he perceived that Browne's position was un-
assailable— a prelude to many other events of a like nature during the
coittse of the war, inasmuch as the enemies of Frederick nearly always
sought and found their strength in a defensive attitude. With swift
resolve the King stopped the battle, which could only be done with
heavy losses. His opponent, satisfied to have got off so lightly, left the
battle-field to the Prussians and retreated to the other side of the Eger.
Frederick could not deny that the Austrians had fought very well ; but,
all the same, they dared not take effective measures for the relief of the
Saxons, it having as yet been impossible to concentrate the military
forces levied in the different parts of the widely extended and clumsily
administered Empire, and, owing to want of money, still unfurnished
with the necessary war material. Thus, on October 16, the Saxons were
compelled to capitulate at Pirna; and about 19,000 men were made
prisoners. By an unscrupulous use of the resources of Saxony, Frederick
increased the army which he had in the field up to 148,000 men.
The necessity for this was all the greater because the whole continent
of Europe united to withstand the overthrow of the balance of power
by a fresh important aggrandisement of Prussia. Not only Austria,
Russia, and France, but the Germanic Empire and Sweden, resolved to
take arms against the disturber of the peace. The constitution of armies
and the general conditions of life in the eighteenth century involved, as
a rule, the necessity of avoiding winter campaigns. Accordingly, after
entering Bohemia, the King evacuated it again and let his army take
up winter-quarters in Saxony and Silesia. Frederick's opponents, too,
undertook no strategical movement against him during the unfavourable
season of the year; but they used the interval for the completion of
their preparations. During the winter (1756-7) 133,000 Austrians
took up their quarters in Bohemia and Moravia, whereas only 114,000
Prussians were encamped in Silesia and Saxony. The King of Prussia
did not consider this numerical disproportion as dangerous in itself,
inasmuch as he had the fullest confidence in the superior quality of his
troops. He wrote to his heir apparent: "If you can oppose 75,000
256 Invasion of Bohemia. [i757
men to 100,000 of the enemyj you must be content." However, he
had in addition to look for the arrival, in the coming summer, of the
Russian army, to meet which he had only a single corps under arras in
East Prussia. France, moreover, had promised her allies to send an
army into northern Germany, and to direct the operations of part of it,
reinforced by the army of the Empire, against Magdeburg, the most
important military centre of the Prussian monarchy. Frederick rfesolved,
instead of remaining inactive till the Austrian, French, and Imperial
troops bore down on him, to defeat the Austrians before the French
came tip.
In the latter half of April the season seemed to him far enough
advanced for military operations on a larger scale. Starting from
Lusatia and Silesia, he invaded Bohemia with over 100,000 men. His
strategical object was the capture of the great magazines erected by the
Austrians in northern Bohemia as a basis for their oiFensive action against
Sa,xony and Silesia. If the Prussians succeeded in seizing these magazimes^
the King might fearlessly detach large bodies of troops for movements
against the French; inasmuch as the Austrians without their supplies
would be unable to march.
Frederick's plan of campaign was extremely hazardous. The Prussians
had to penetrate into a hostile country in three widely separated columns,
between which the Austrians were in command of the inner line of
operations. Moreover, a mountain barrier had to be passed which could
be defended by means of a few troops ; and the Prussians had to begin
by seizing the magazines containing the supplies on which they were
to live. The worst, however, was that through treacheiy the Court of
Vienna had got wind of the intended Prussian operation. The Austrians
still had time to concentrate their 115,000 men scattered through
northern Bohemia, with every prospect of inflicting a defeat on the
100,000 Prussians invading the country at different points. But to the
Empress' generals the plan ascribed to the King of Prussia appeared so
reckless that they would not believe the traitors who announced it, and
ignored their information although it was correct even in the details.
Field-Marshal Browne, too, seemed perfectly unconcerned, and declared
that no danger existed of a Prussian attack. He even proceeded to
inspect once more all the Austrian stations, and praised what he saw of
the disposition — or rather, scattered distribution — of the forces. Thus
the Austrians were everywhere in a condition of distraction and im-
perfect readiness, when they were surprised and systematically attacked
by the enemy. Nowhere could they oflFer any successful resistance^ but
on the contrary, were obliged at all points to retreat hurriedly and in
disorder, abandoning their magazines in the western and central parts of
northern Bohemia.
The two best genereels of the Prussian army, Winterfeldt and
Schwerin,^ would have prosecuted the plan of campaign with even more
1757] The armies meet before Prague. 267
audacity than the King, if they could have had their way. The three
Prussian columns which accomplished the invasion of Bohemia came
from Saxony, Lusatia and over the Riesengebirge. The commander of
the last of these columns, the septuagenarian Field-Marshal Schwerin,
seconded by Winterfeldt, asked the King's permission to push on to
Koniggratz and Pardubitz, where lay the largest of the Austrian
magazines. But Frederick, not thinking himself strong enough to
extend his operations so far, refused, and commanded Schwerin to join
him to the north of Prague. He would be satisfied if the enemy's
magazines in Jungbunzlau, Aussig, Budin, Lobositz, Leitmeritz, and
Teplitz came under his control. A success of the kind would paralyse
the Austrian offensive plans for months ; but, if he aimed at more, his
plan might be undone by the superior strength of the Austrians. Here
we recognise the true strategical genius of Frederick the Great. He
laid his plan of campaign with such boldness that his opponents were
quite unable to grasp his audacity ; nevertheless, he always kept in view
the necessity of modifying his schemes, of bridling his imagination, and
of limiting himself to the attainable.
King Frederick, as well as Schwerin and Winterfeldt, expected that
the Austrians would not be forced out of Bohemia by mere manoeuvres,
but that they would give the Prussians an opportunity of engaging in
a considerable combat, perhaps a great battle. To such an event the
King and his generals looked forward with self-confidence and delight.
The Austrian army was now under the command of the brother of the
Emperor Francis I, Prince Charles of Lorraine, who was making ready
for battle in the fortress of Prague. On May 1 and 2 the Austrians
crossed over from the left to the right bank of the Moldau and took up
their position, to the east of Prague, on the slopes of the Ziskaberg and
Taborberg. At the same time King Frederick advanced at the head of
the column from Saxony to the White Hill (Weisse Berg). Marshal
Schwerin was posted with the Silesian and Lusatian columns opposite
Brandeis on the right bank of the Elbe. If, therefore, the Prussian
forces were to take the shortest way for uniting in face of the Austrian,
a part of them would have to cross the Moldau, and another the Elbe.
Prince Charles of Lorraine wrote to the Empress Maria Theresa that,
instead of undertaking so daring a manoeuvre, Frederick seemed to him
much more likely to draw the two columns under Marshal Schwerin in
a great curve towards him by way of Melnik^ and then by a second
great curve encircle the Austrian position and cross the Moldau above
Prague. Prince Charles hoped to gain a very significant advantage from
the very leisurely manoeuvre which he expected on the part of his
adversary; for the strong division under Serbelloni, numbering 37,000
men, which had covered the magazines by Pardubitz and Koniggratz
against Schwerin, was now approaching Prague from the east. If he
could join forces with Serbelloni, Prince Charles would have at his
0. M. H. VI. OH. IZ. 17
258 Battle of Prague. [i757
disposal a fighting army of nearly 100,000 men, while the fortress of
PlBgue was occupied by 13,000. But Frederick and Schwerio had a
force of only 64,000, because more than 30,000 Prussians were obliged
toi stay behind on the left bank of the Moldau to cover the line of
communication with the bases of the army. With 100,000 against
64,000 combatants, the Prince of Lorraine might reckon on gelining the
victory ; but he underrated the resolution and mobility of his opponent
On May S, Frederick crossed the Moldau near Selz, an hour's diistane©
from Prague — in face, that is, of the Austrian front. The most favour-
able opportunity thus offered itself to Prince Charles of punishing the
King of Prussia's temerity. The transit of Frederick's 20,000 men
across the Moldau lasted the whole day ; and it was not till the middle
of the night that the heavy artillery reached the camp. To the King's
intense uneasiness, Schwerin's 44,000 men were still not on the spot ; he
had, indeed, crossed the Elbe on May 4 near Brandeis, but on the 5th,
notwithstanding the King's orders, he had not ventured to march to
the Moldau, because a false alarm led him to fear the approach of
the 61,000 Austrians in the neighbourhood of Prague. Thus, had
Prince Charles cared to look, he might on the 5th have discovered
the Prussian forces in a condition of dislocation. But he lacked the
swift resolve and energy requisite for dealing with so terrible an enemy ;
moreover, he had no confidence in the quality of his troops; and,
finally, he was without personal authority over his subordinate generals.
After Frederick had spent the whole of May 5 waiting for Schwerin, he
issued an order in the evening that the Field-Marshal was to join him
by means of a night march. Consequently, on the morning of May 6
the junction of the 64,000 Prussians took place in front of the 61,000
Ainstrians. The King now determined to attack instantly. A direct
attack on the Austrian position being impossible, the only thing that
remained to be done was to turn the enemy's right wing, where the
ground offered no particular difficulty to the attacking force. Schwerin's
tired troops were dbliged to execute a long flank march through morasses,
into which the men often sank up to their armpits ; only the best-drilled
infantry of the day could have overcome such hardships, and overcome
them rapidly.
The battle began at ten o'clock with a cavalry engagement on the
Kstreme left wing of the Prussians. In cavalry they had decidedly the
numCTical superiority (17,000 against 13,000 Austrians). On the other
hand, the Austrian infantry was slightly superior in numbers to the
Prussian (48,600 against 47,000). For hours the squadrons continued
the attack without producing any decisive effect. Meanwhile, Schwerin
had ordered the first divisions of the Prussian infantry which had come
up to attack without waiting for the arrival of the rest. First, the
grenadier brigade^ then Schwerin's regiment and Fouque's, advanced,
without returning the Austrian fire,, shoiddering their guns; but the
1767] Battle of Prctgue. 269
onslaught failed, and the regiments fled. The venerable Field-Marshal
dismounted, snatched a flag, and addressed the troops. He was struck
by five case-shot balls, and fell.
Opposite, on the Austrian side, the battalions moved resolutely
forward to foUow up their success. They were addressed by Field -
Marshal Browne, till a Prussian cannon-ball shattered his leg, and he, too,
fell mortally wounded. About the same time. Prince Charles of Lorraine
was seized by a fit of cramp, just as he beheld his squadrons succumbing
at last to the enemy's assault, and remained unconscious till the end
of the battle. Thus the Austrian army found itself leaderless, no other
general taking over the command. The battle on the Austrian side
was continued as a purely defensive action — and this invariably means
defeat. After the Prussian infantry had gradually deployed, the King
and the other generals directed their special attention to the gap in the
enemy's line of battle occasioned by the advance of Marshal Browne's
battalions. Taking instant and energetic advantage of the opportunity
offered them, the Prussians poured through the enemy's dislocated
order of battle; and, outflanked by the victorious Prussian cavalry,
and broken asunder by the Prussian infantry, the Austrian army took
refuge within the fortifications of Prague. It was not quite four o'clock
in the afternoon when the last shots were fired. 9000 out of 61,000
Austrians lay dead or wounded on the field ; of 64,000 Prussians 14!,000
were killed or wounded. Among his losses, which weighed heavily upon
him as the ruler of a small country without allies in the field, Frederick
would find it specially hard to make good that of his 400 officers who
had fallen. "The pillars of the Prussian infantry," he wrote, "have
been swept away."
After the victory of their comrades on the right bank of the Moldau,
the body of over 30,000 Prussians which had remained behind on the
left bank, to cover the original contact between the army and its maga-
zines, and which was stationed on the White Hill under the command
of Marshal Keith, now closed in on Prague from the " Kleine Seite," and
prevented the beaten Austrian army from retreating to the left bank of
the river. The main Prussian force invested the city on the opposite bank.
The statement has been frequently, but quite erroneously, made, that it
was a premeditated plan of Frederick's to drive his enemies after con-
quering them in battle, into Prague, and there force them to capitulate.
When he marched against the Austrians, the position of the majority of
Prince Charles' troops faced to the north, and they had an assured line
of retreat towards the south behind the Sasawa. Not till Frederick
found himself compelled, much against his will, to make so wide a circuit
of the Austrian army, did Prince Charles' front come to face towards
the east. Thus the bulk of the defeated army was left no choice but to
seek refuge in Prague ; in the direction of the Sasawa only a fragment
of the Austrian force could escape.
CH. IX. 17—2
260 Siege of Prague. [1757
46,000 Austrians, inclusive of the garrison, were now shut up in
Prague. Their capitulation could only be brought to pass by; starving
them out; and the place contained provisions enough to last for eight weeks.
But Frederick's original plan of campaign had been based on the idea
that by the middle of May he would have finished operations in Bohemia.
Now, the siege of Prague threatened to detain him tiU far into July and
so to oblige him to postpone for the same length of time his march
against the French. Moreover, the danger threatening from the latter
was constantly on the increase. After the battle of Prague Louis XV
had ordained that, besides the army which was to march against Hanover
and- Magdeburg, another was to be formed to give direct assistance to
Maria Theresa in Bohemia. And what if the Hanoverians now resolved
to declare themselves neutral in the Anglo-French War ? The King of
Prussia thought it not altogether improbable that George H, as Elector
of Hanover, might engage in some such ingenious course of poHtical
manoeuvring; in which case Prussia would have to contend single-
handed against the onslaught of the whole military strength of Prance.
Frederick felt that he dare not put off taking action against the French
any longer than the middle of June, unless he wished to drive Hanover
into a declaration of neutrality. But where was he to obtain troops for
the purpose ? He had at the most 85,000 men in Bohemia, with which
force he had to invest Prague with its garrison of 46,000 Austrians,
guard his military communications, and keep in check Serbelloni's
division.
In the command of this division Field-Marshal Count Daun was
substituted for the not very capable Serbelloni. Daim's personal
influence proved to be such that he was able to extinguish in his
troops (which had gradually increased to 54,000) all fear of the
victorious Prussians and to inspire them with self-confidence. He was
confronted by a Prussian corps under the command of the Duke of
Bevern, which covered the main army before Prague tmder the command
of the King. As Bevem's division was numerically weak, the hope
gradually took possession of its Austrian adversaries that Daun would
defeat Bevern and thus relieve the army in Prague. Maria Theresa sent
explicit orders to the Field-Marshal to risk a battle, pledging her honour
as Empress that she would not lay the blame on him if the result of the
action was unfortunate. Thus Daun sought an opportunity for giving
battle — with the excessive caution characteristic of him, but with true
warlike ardour beneath his self-restraint. Such being the situation, it
became an absolute necessity for the King of Prussia to wage another
battle. If he defeated Daun, he could detach troops against the French,
without foregoing the capture of Prague. At the head of a detachment
taken from the investing force, Frederick effected a jimction with Bevern,
whose numbers now reached 33,000. With these forces the King hoped
to defeat Daim's 64,000, who, on June 18, had drawn up on the heights
1757] Battle of Kolin. 261
between Kolin and Planian. The strength of the Prussian cavalry fell,
in proportion, the least short of the enemy's ; its main body was, as at
Prague, commanded by General von Ziethen ; 14,000 Prussian horsemen
were opposed to 19,000, and only 19,000 Prussian foot to 35,000 Austrian.
On marching from their camp towards the Austrian position,
Frederick''s troops had, after a short night's rest, to accomplish a
difficult march of four or five hours' duration. Although it was still
quite early in the day, a sultry heat lay on the fields, which were over-
grown with corn, and proved a great hindrance to the forward march of
the Prussians. The King allowed his weary army a three hours' halt
immediately in face of Daun's centre. The Austrians found themselves
again, as at Prague, in a very strong defensive position which could
only be attacked by turning their right wing. It was nearly one o'clock
in the afternoon when there was a sudden renewal of life among the
Prussians; and at two o'clock the battle began. Frederick's generals
made some mistakes, such as may occur in every battle, and had been
much more marked in that of Prague. The King afterwards accused
himself of having erred in not personally reconnoitring the ground on
the enemy's right wing. But, whatever errors there may have been in
their leadership the Prussians, in spite of these, continued for hours to
advance victoriously. About four o'clock, Daun saw his right wing
heavily pressed and, as it seemed, hopelessly overwhelmed. But, according
to the tribute paid him by Frederick in his History of the Seven Years'
War, Daun was a " great general." He was, in truth, a second Fabius
Cunctator — one of those tough and circumspect strategists whom
PVederick the Great, with his just insight into the age's methods of
carrying on war, valued so highly. Against the furious onslaught of
the greatest captain and the best army in Europe, he defended himself
steadfastly, infusing into his troops something of his own calm energy.
Thus, in the end, the force of the Prussians' onslaught was broken by
the great numerical superiority of their opponents. When the Austrians
in their turn advanced to attack the exhausted Prussians, they obtained
a complete victory. The Prussian army was all but destroyed, losing
13,000 out of 33,000 men. Of 19,000 foot but 7000 rallied round tbe
flag. Again, as at Prague, 400 officers, the flower of the Prussian nobility,
lay dead on the field. Twenty-two colours fell into the enemy's hands.
If we ca,n imagine Daun, with his great strategical ability, transported
from the eighteenth into the nineteenth century, conducting war according
to the rules of the later period, in all probability the Prussian army
would have been entirely wiped out. But the military methods of the
cmckn rigime made the pursuit of a routed army exceedingly difficult ;
and Frederick the Great himself accomphshed very little in this branch
of military operations. Daun attempted no kind of pursuit.
King Frederick, quitting his defeated troops, rode through the night
by by-ways in the direction of the Prussian camp before Prague, accom-
262 Prussian evacuation of Bohemia. [i757
paiiied by only two or three of his body-guard and a few hussars.
Except for brief intervals, he had been in the saddle for thirty-six hours,
when on the afternoon of the day after the battle, half-dead from
exhaustion, he reached the besieging army before Prague. The reproach
maliciously brought against him by his own brother Prince Henry (for
Frederick was loved by few among those nearest to him) : " Phaethon is
fallen... Phaethon took good care of himself and withdrew before the loss
of the battle was quite decided," was entirely unmerited. His place
after the defeat was not at the head of his beaten forces, when another
could lead them from the field as well as he could, but with the main army
before Prague, where he had to superintend the now unavoidable raising
of the siege. " In spite of the great disaster of the 18th, I decamped
from Prague to-day with drums and fifes in the most defiant attitude,"
wrote the King on June 20 to Prince Maurice of Dessau, the commander
of the beaten troops at Kolin. " In this misfortune we must do all we
possibly can by our determined demeanour to retrieve matters. My
heart is lacerated ; but I am not cast down and shall seek the very first
opportunity of obliterating this reverse." First of all, however, not
only had the siege of Prague to be raised, but the whole of Bohemia
evacuated. Severely damaged by the skilful manoeuvres of the Austrians,
the Prussian army retired over the mountains of the frontier back into
Lusatia. Owing to their losses on Bohemian soil, the King's forces had
melted to one-half of their original strengths Nevertheless, King Frederick
sought a fresh battle with the Austrians, who were pushing into Lusatia
after the retiring Prussians. But Prince Charles and Daun encamped
themselves at Zittau, which was as impregnable as the position at Lobositz.
Here they stood from July 24 till August 25. The King of Prussia
almost despaired of finding any weak point at which to attack the
Austrians, while the French, Russians, Swedes, and the army of the
Empire were now advancing. France, especially, displayed in her defence
of Saxony a vigour which Frederick had mot expected. Louis XV
not only sent a second army into Germany, but concluded on May 1,
1757, a second Treaty of Versailles, in which the yearly subsidies
paid to the Court of Vienna were raised to twelve million gtddm
(d^l ,200,000). Thus Maria Theresa was enabled on her side to pay
subsidies to Russia.
While Frederick waited with feverish impatience for an opportunity
of forcing the Austrians encamped at Zittau to a battle, he composed
an Apology, to be made public in the event of his being struck down.
This document, preserved in the Prussian Archives, was first printed in
1856. In it the King expresses his bitter repehtance that he had ever
begun the war. " How could I foresee that Fratice would send 150,000
men into the Empire? How could I foresee that the Empire would
take part in the struggle, that Sweden would mix herself up in this
war, that France would subsidise Russia?"
1757] Battle of Hastenheck -Convention of Klosterzeven. 263
The iilain army of the French, 110,000 strong, was commanded by
Marshal d'Estrees. On the other side, the Duke of Cumberland was at
the head of 45,000 Hanoverians, Hessians, and Brunswickers. The forces
contributed by these three small States went under the suggestive title
of the "Army of Observaticsn." The Hanoverian Ministers thought
that a good Hanoverian had as much reason to fear the heavy hand of
Prussia as that of the French. Moreover, England was indisposed to
make any great financial sacrifices for the sake of the Hanoverian
army, public opinion in that country fearing that the money of the
British taxpayer would be misappropriated for purely dynastic interests.
On these groimds the Hanoverians had really very little inclination to
take part in the war. But Hanover's whole position was too exposed
for the electoral Ministers to succeed in achieving its neutralisation,
which Austria and France were seeking to bring about. Willing or
unwilling, Hanover was bound to fight. On July 26 a battle took place
at Hastenbeck between Marshal d'Estrees and the Duke of Cumberland,
who was beaten and fell back behind the guns of the fortress of Stade on
the North Sea. On September 10 he concluded with Marshal d'Estrees'
successor, the Duke of Hichelieu, the Convention of Klosterzeven, which
meant the disbanding of the Army of Observation. There seemed now
nothing to prevent the French from taking up their winter-quarters on
the lower and middle Elbe and besieging Magdebui'g in the cotu^e
of the next campaign. "If the French get to Magdeburg," said the
King of Prussia, " I am lost." Already Richelieu was being invited by
the Swedes to cooperate with them. Frederick's defeat at Kolin had
encouraged the Stockholm Government to move 17,000 men into Prussian
Pomerania on September 13. Frederick was afraid that this body of
troops, to which at present he had virtually none to oppose, would also
take part in the siege of Magdeburg. Another consequence of the defeat
of the Prussians was that the Estates of the Empire now ventured to
assemble their contingents at Fiirth in Franeonia. Gradually they
gathered together here something like 32,000 Imperial soldiery imder
Prince Joseph of Saxe-Hildburghausen. They marched into Thuringia
and on September 17 joined at Eisenach 24,000 French under the Prince
of Soubise — that second army, which Louis XV had sent after the battle
of Prague, to give direct aid to the Austrian forces.
Frederick now decided to march at once against the French, without
waiting to figkt the Austrians. He indulged the hope that, when
the French in their turn had lost a battle, they would, help Prussia to
obtain peace on a status quo ante bellum basis. Indirect overtures of
this kind had, it is true, been made by him to the Court of Versailles,
and had been emphatically rejected; but he had other reasons, of a
diplomatic nature, for being specially anxious to obtain a victory over
the French army. In England there was a strong feeling against the
ratification of the Convention of Klosterzeven. Pitt and other Ministers
264 The Russians in East Prussia. [i757
were beginning to familiarise themselves with the idea that heavy
British subsidies must be granted to the Hanoverians. The mere fact
of Frederick's march into Thuringia with 28,000 men to meet Soubise
and Hildburghausen materially strengthened this current of feeling in
London. Frederick left the Duke of Severn with 41,000 men behind in
Lusatia, to oppose the Prince of Lorraine at the head of not less than
112,000. Charles, counselled by Daun, won Lusatia from his opponents
by a series of manoeuvres, and occupied it with a strong corps of 22,000
men under General von Marschall. Bevem's army was driven back into
Silesia and stationed itself at Breslau, thus leaving the greater part of
the province to the Austrians, who detached a column for the investment
of Schweidnitz. In one of the minor combats of this manoeuvring warfare
Lieutenant-General von Winterfeldt, the most competent general in the
Prussian army and a personal friend of the King, fell, near Gorlitz, on
September 7.
Meanwhile, on August 11, the Russians had crossed the frontier of
East Prussia at Stalluponen. The Russian Commander-in-chief, Field-
Marshal General Count Aprakin, advanced with his forces to the Pregel,
intending to march along that river on Konigsberg. In obedience to
precise orders from the King, the venerable Prussian Commander-in-chief,
Field-Marshal Lehwaldt, attacked the Russian army. He did so very
much against his will, as the Russians were much stronger than he was.
In the battle fought on August 80 at Gross-JSgerndorf, on the left bank
of the river Pregel, the Prussians suffered a severe defeat. But, to the
indescribable amazement of the defeated army, it was found, a few days
after the action, that Aprakin not only refrained from following up his
victory, but had actually retreated. The Russian general, like Lehwaldt
an old man, had been greatly impressed by the coolness and discipline
with which the Prussian infantry had manoeuvred under hostile fire.
He declared to his subordinate generals that Lehwaldt's forces were
numerous enough to be able to hold several positions against Russian
attack for a considerable time, while the Russian army could not keep
the field any longer. In fact, the Russians melted away like snow in
the sun, for their incapable commissariat kept them intolerably short of
supplies and the ordinary necessaries of life. For this reason Aprakin
began to evacuate Prussia on September 9. In the middle of May the
Russians had entered Poland 88,000 strong. When, early in November,
they had evacuated East Prussia except Memel and had taken up their
winter-quarters in Polish territory, Aprakin had under him scarcely
more than 30,000 or 40,000 combatants fit for service.
In the middle of September Frederick marched from Lusatia into
Thuringia, to meet the armies of the Empire and of Soubise. But the
Princes of Soubise and Hildburghausen, like the Austrian generals, avoided
a decisive combat by concentrating at Eisenach, at the extreme western
limit of Thuringia. On September 10 the Convention of Klosterzeven
1757] The " Combined Army" 265
was signed by the Duke of Richelieu, who then, without waiting for its
ratification and the promised disbandment of the Army of Observation,
moved with 94 battalions and 106 squadrons from the lower Aller
on Magdeburg. Threatened on his right flank by so powerful a force,
the King of Prussia found it impossible to continue operations against
Soubise. He detached 7000 of his 28,000 men to march under Prince
Ferdinand of Brunswick into the neighbourhood of Halberstadt, in
order to cover this district against Richelieu's advance column.
While Richelieu marched on Magdeburg, the Austrian General
Marschall had accomplished in Lusatia a manoeuvre which amounted to
a considerable diversion in favour of Soubise. He ordered Field-Marshal
Lieutenant Hadik to march towards the Elbe, so that Dresden, Torgau
and Wittenberg appeared to be threatened. In addition, Hadik's hussars
and Croats made a series of raids into the Mark Brandenburg. In
view of Hadik's movements, which might even result in an attempt
upon Berlin, Frederick divided his forces once more, sending a detach-
ment of 8000 men under Prince Maurice of Dessau to Torgau, to
cover the Elbe fortresses in Saxony and the Mark Brandenburg. In
consequence, only 13,000 men remained to the King at Erfurt. With
this handful of troops Frederick, from September 14! to 28, opposed the
vastly superior forces of the " Combined Army," as the troops of Soubise
and Hildburghausen were officially designated, while they held their
impregnable position at Eisenach with stubborn tenacity.
They only ventured on a single reconnoitring expedition in the
direction of Gotha ; and this was attended with unfortunate results for
those troops of the Combined Army which took part in it. The Prussian
Major-General von Seydlitz, who at the age of thirty-six had proved
himself in the last Bohemian campaign the ablest cavalry general in
the Prussian army, at the head of 1900 dragoons and hussars, surprised
9500 of the enemy and put them to an ignominious flight, in which
their losses were heavy. Here the extraordinary deficiencies from which
the Combined Army suffered for the first time made themselves evident.
Nevertheless, the preponderance of the enemy's numbers seemed certain
to overpower the King. During the fortnight in which he was encamped
near Erfurt he was absolutely at a loss as to how he should continue
operations. Even at the time of the battle of Kolin, he had entertained
the idea of suicide. Now, this temptation presented itself more strongly
than ever, and he protested that princes of the eighteenth century would
not let themselves be outshone by republicans of antiquity like Brutus
and Cato in loftiness of soul.
In truth, the war seemed irretrievably lost for Prussia. Frederick
had written to his Minister of Foreign Affairs, Count Finkenstein, that,
if the main army of the French hurled itself in good earnest on the
duchy of Magdeburg, he would need 40,000 more men than he had to
escape annihilation. And at that moment, the French main army was
266 Critical position of Frederick II. [1757-8
actually advancing on Magdebiirg, something like 60,000 strong. Prince
Ferdinand of Brunswick with his 7000 was of course much too weak to
oflFer resistance ; he withdrew behind the Bode, leaving the rich district
of Halberstadt exposed to the French. They heid long since occupied
the Rhenish and WestphaJian possessions of Prussia ; while the Austriaas
had overrun Lusatia and Silesia, and appropriated the resources of those
provinces to their own uses. From Lusatia Austrian, and from Pomerania
Swedish, raids laid the Mark Brandenburg under contribution — for 17,000
Swedra had occupied the whole of Prussian Pomerania with the exception
of the fortress of Stettin.
And now Frederick was (hdven to the decision of leaving a great
part of his country open to the enemy. He sent an order on September 29
to Field-Marshal Lehwaldt to evacuate East Prussia with his force of
29,000 men, and to march on Stettin. Lehwaldt's army was to be used
for a winter campaign, which the King intended to open in December
against French and Swedes.
Thus East Prussia was lost soon after it had been freed from tiie
invasion of Aprakin. In January, 1758, the Russians took possessi(m of
tiie defenceless province, which they did not evacuate again till the con-
clusion of peace. For the rest, Frederick hesitated as to whether in the
winter he should attack the French on the Elbe or the Austrians in
Silesia. He negotiated with Marshal Richelieu for a truce to last till
May, 1758, and to be also extended to the Swedes. Thus he hoped to
obtain a free hand against Austria ; but in other respects the truce
could not but be of enormous disadvantage to him. George II was still
hesitating as to whether he should ratify the Convention of Klosterzeven,
the Army of Observation remainmg meanwhile, undisbanded, in the
environs of Stade. He informed his Hanoverian Ministers that he was
disposed to refuse the ratification, if the King of Prussia obtained a
military success and thus proved himself able to hold his own. But if,
instead of this, an arrangement was accepted by Frederick which would
strengthen the position of the French in Hanover, the effect on George
could only be that despair and mistrust would take absolute possession
of his mind; and he would then very probably, in his capacity of
Elector, consent to an understanding with the conqueror of his German
dominions.
Now, France, since the Convention of Klosterzeven, had already been
negotiating with the Landgrave of Hesse and the Duke of Brunswick as to
proposals for takii^ the 17,000 Hessians and Brunswickers, at present in
English, into French pay. The Duke of Mecklenburg-Schwerin, whose
country, like the Elector of Saxony's, Frederick wanted to annex, had been
the ally of France since the bEgiiuing of the war. He now offered the
Cabinet of Versailles to transfer 6000 men into the pay of France and to
cede to the Most Christian King the fortress of Domitz, on the Elbe,
which, if in the enemy's hand, would block the trade-communication of
1767] Divergent views of Soubise and Hildburghausen. 267
Frederick's subjects with Hamburg. In this way another severe blow
would be struck at the prosperity of the Prussian monarchy. But, above
all, Mecklenburg formed the connecting territorial link between the army
of Richelieu and the Swedish corps in Prussian Pomerania. The French
intended to unite, for, the campaign of 1758, Hessians, Bruns wickers,
Mecklenburgers, and Swedes, into an army 40,000 strong. This would
have been a Protestant army, while already there were in the field against
Frederick two Roman Catholic armies and one Orthodox, besides the army
of the Empire, made up of a mixture of Catholics and Protestants. These
five armies would certainly have crushed the King. Every day his
hopes sank lower. " We are doomed," he said ; "but I shall fall sword
in hand."
He drew back slightly before the advances of the Princes of Soubise
and Hildburghausen to positions near Buttelstedt and Buttstadt, north
of Weimar, and here stood still for another twelve days, without
knowing what to do next. Frederick's slight backward move had been
intended as a trap for Hildburghausen, whom he believed to be
incautious enough to follow him and lay himself open to the danger of
a defeat. In fact, Hildburghausen did urge Soubise to risk a battle.
The army of the Empire was composed in motley fashion of contingents
supplied by numerous small dynasts. This had not hindered Marlborough
and Eugene from winning partly by means of the army of the Empire
the battle of Hochstadt ; but in their day English and Dutch subsidies
had helped to establish that army on a satisfactory footing. At present,
in consequence of lack of money, such intolerable conditions prevailed
among the Imperial troops that Hildburghausen despaired of being able
to keep his forces together for loiig, and therefore impatiently sought a
decision by battle. Soubise had no thought of acquiescing in the wishes
of his colleague. The strategical genius of the King and the incomparable
quality of his troops would in all probability turn the scale in a pitched
battle, while, on the other hand, the allies would doubtless annihilate
their opponents, whom they were encompassing on all sides, if they
conducted a judiciously planned war of manoeuvres against them.
Soubise therefore showed extreme caution as he followed the retiring
enemy, and ventured no further than Gotha with the bulk of his army,
" When I advance," wrote the King of Prussia, " the enemy fly ; when I
faU back, they follow me, but always keeping well out of reach of shot.
Should I leave these parts and, for instance, seek an encounter with
Richelieu in his pride somewhere hear Halberstadt, he would behave in
the same fashion, and the enemy hereabouts, for the moment as im-
movable as statues, would soon come to life and nail me down somewhere
near Magdeburg. If I fall back on Lusatia, they wiU take my magazines
at Leipzig and Torgau and march straightway on Berlin. These moves
cannot go on much longer ; the game must shortly come to an end one
Way or the other." Prince Henry and Voltaire reminded him that other
OH. IX.
268 Movements of the Prussian army. [i757
kings before him had purchased peace and self-preservation by cessions of
territory ; but his answer was :
"Pour moi, menace du naufrage,
Je dois, en affrontant I'orage,
Penser, vivre et mourir en roi."
The King had spent nearly a month in the neighbourhood of Erfurt
and Weimar, trying to force Soubise' corps and the Imperial army into
fighting, when the news was announced that the Austrians were marching
from Lusatia to Berlin. Reports were contradictory as to their strength.
If it was the whole of Marschall's corps, the suspicion was unavoidable
that Sweden had part and lot in the enterprise. Frederick was in the
direst distress. Berlin contained invaluable resources for the defence of
Prussia — the arsenal, the foundry, the manufactory of arms, the powder
magazines, and the cloth factories. " Ah ! dear brother, how happy are
the dead ! " the King wrote to Prince Henry. Then, with tremendous
energy, he took his counter-measures. He not only wished to protect
his capital, but hoped that the blow which the French had given him no
opportunity of striking might now fall on MarschalFs column. The
Prince of Anhalt's detachment, which covered the magazines of Leipzig
and Torgau, was despatched from Weissenfels on the Saale by means
of quite extraordinary marches to the eastern side of Berlin. Prince
Ferdinand was ordered to lead his , troops from Magdeburg to the
western side of the capital. The King himself moved with the main
army from Buttstadt, and drove his breathless companies on towards the
south side of Berlin. " We must," he said, " get these people into our
power, alive or dead." But once more he had been merely fighting the
air. Not until his forces had advanced close on Berlin did it become
known that it was not Marschall's column at all, but merely a skirmishing
party of 3500 men under Count Hadik, which had entered Berlin and,
after levying contributions, had speedily departed. The enormous losses
suffered by the King's forces on the march had served no purpose,
Frederick hereupon formed the design of tracking the Austrians in
Lusatia and Silesia, regarding his operations against the French and
the Imperial army as finally wrecked. Then came the announcement
that Soubise had sidvanced to the Saale, and that Hildburghausen had
actually crossed this river and was trying to get possession of Leipzig.
The King's hopes of forcing the Combined Army into action revived,
and he moved his troops, instead of on Gorlitz, towards Leipzig. The
army of the Empire retreated very hurriedly behind the Saale, and the
King of Prussia's forces pushed on over the river in pursuit. During
the operations in Thuringia the numbers of the Prussian battalions
and squadrons had, through the influx of the autumn recruiting
contingents, been restored up to their normal height ; but during a period
of eight weeks, the counter- and cross-marches in Thuringia, Saxony,
1767] Condition of the French army. 269
Magdeburg and Brandenburg had been unceasing, and, in consequence
of the superhuman hardships endured, the full battalions, consisting of
about 840 men, had again already shrunk to an average of 600. Still,
the whole force was held together by the iron Prussian discipline.
Quite different conditions prevailed in the French army, where neither
officers nor soldiers observed discipline, although revolutionary ideas
proper had not yet penetrated among the troops. The worst evil, and
the root of all the rest, was the insubordination of the generals. It was
precisely in the highest spheres of the army that the personal weakness
of Louis XV, and the disorganised state of his government, had produced
the utmost disorder — in fact, a kind of anarchy. The generals called
every field-marshal who held the reins firmly a " despot," and yielded him
a doubtful obedience. They were full of jealousy among themselves ;
each believing that in battle his fellow would leave him in the lurch.
If Soubise had been perfectly master of his troops, he would not have
made a stand before the King of Prussia, but have moved a couple of
days' marches to the rear, in the same way as six weeks before he had
withdrawn twenty battalions of his advance-guard from Erfurt to Eisenach
on Frederick's advance from Lusatia to Erfurt. A procedure of this sort
had been prescribed to him from Versailles, and Frederick, as has been
seen, was apprehensive of it. But an army is a complicated and
sensitive piece of mechanism. Marching to and fro demands more
sacrifices from troops than a pitched battle; and for a long time the
French had been grumbling at the interminable marches which led to no
decisive result. The French army was without an equal in Europe, in so
far as alone of all the armies of the globe it hsid abolished the punish-
ment of flogging ; nowhere was the common soldier so humanely treated,
or his honour so generously considered. The French ambulance, too, was
unequalled for efficiency. The system of drill was theoretically the same
as the Prussian. In personal bravery the French soldier was unsurpassed.
All the technique, the materials of war, etc., were first-rate. The com-
missariat, in spite of corruption, was without a superior as to ability
and resource. Even Soubise, whom critical history was formerly wont
to deride as the inventor of a sauce highly appreciated by gourmets, has
by later research been proved to have been no insignificant commander.
Hitherto, he had carried out his plan of operations consistently.
Bat now he no longer had his troops in hand. They were eager to
occupy winter-quarters, and resented being subjected by him to the
hardships of a retreat, instead of his bringing the campaign to a quick
and glorious close by a battle in the fine old French style. Least of
all would tolerate a backward movement the twenty battalions and
eighteen squadrons which Lieutenant-General the Duke of Broglie had
just brought up from the Richelieu division of the army ! These troops
had already shown the utmost exasperation when carrying out the march
from Halberstadt into Thuringia, as they had reckoned on going into
270 Battle of Bosshack. [iW
winter-quarters without further delay. In the French campj it had
come to this: that the general in command obeyed the army, not the
army the commander. Soubise halted near the left bank of the Saale
and occupied a strong position not far from Miicheln. Tlie King of
Prussia led his army against this position ; but, discovering in time that
it was too strong, ordered a retreat and encamped himself opposite the
French at Rossbach. He knew that his adversaries, through lack of the
necessaries of life, would soon be compelled to abandon their impregnable
position and either advance against him or retire upon their magazines.
In the latter case, he hoped to force their rear-guard to a combat on the
march. On the other side, Soubise was still unwilling to offer battle ;
his plan was to outflank the encampment at Rossbach on the left and
thus threaten the Prussian communication with Weissenfels. The Prince
hoped that Frederick would then voluntarily beat a retreat. When tine
Prussians had been thus manoeuvred away from the Saale, Soubise would,
directed by his Minister, take up winter-quarters behind this river.
To can-y out these operations, Soubise began his march on November 5,
not earlier than 11.30 in the morning. Frederick therefore could not
attack on the same day if the French posted themselves opposite the left
wing of the Prussian lines, on the heights of Obschiitz. The army with
which Soubise began his flank march on that fateful November 6 con-
sisted of 80,000 French troops and 11,000 of the army of the Empire.
Of the latter not less than 7000 were disbanded quite at the beginning
of the battle — a fact which may be verified from the list of casualti®
on this day ; they are therefore not included in the statistics concerning^
the action given in the present narrative, for only 34,000 of the Com-
bined Army were reckoned on the battle-field as actual combatants.
King Frederick had with him 22,000 men. Soubise' troops were eager
for battlie, their spirits having heea raised by Frederick's retreat on the
previous day.
When the King of Prussia became aware that the enemy was marching
upon his left flank, he had no thought of retreating over the Saale in
accordance with the expectations of the French generals. But he had
just as little intention of venturing to attack the enemy on the heights
of Obschiitz. It was indeed not behind the Saale, but on Merseburg,
that he arranged to fall back. It is generally stated that this was a
feigned retreat, a mere stratagem; but such is not the fact. Cut off
from Weissenfels by Soubise' flank march, the King of Prussia intended
to make Merseburg the base of his operations. To the victor of Gotha,
General von Seydlitz, was assigned the command of the larger part of
the Prussian cavalry, with special orders to block the road to Merseburg.
He was the youngest cavalry general present with the army.
It was about half-past two o'clock in the afternoon when the French
perceived that the King of Prussia was falling back. They had now
reached the goal of their advance and were on the heights of Obschiitz.,
1757] Battle of Bosshach. 271
But, as Soubise saw that the Prussians were retiring, he resolved to avail
himself of the advantageous opportunity offered and to attack Frederick's
rear-guard. After the French had once committed the cardinal mistake
of lingering in the neighbourhood of the Saale, one can scarcely blame
Soubise for this decision. For, if the King of Prussia had made up
his mind to give battle, the French on their side were obliged to accept
it either on this or some other day. So the Combined Army continued
their march beyond Obschiitz and descended into the wide trough of
land which extends from that village to the north. The King of Prussia
saw the enemy come down from the Obschiitz heights, and at once
gave up the movement to Merseburg — for the ardently desired chance
of battle had come. The Prussian army were ordered to deploy. The
undulating country behind Reichhardtswerben hid from the French the
forward march of the Prussians; and their cavalry, advancing first,
surprised and attacked the cavalry of the Combined Army, which had
not yet deployed. The squadrons of Seydlitz maintained their advantage,
but with some difficulty, as the enemy stood his ground for quite half-an-
hour, so that the French infantry gained time for their deployment.
Soubise has been condemned as a careless general, of the superficial,
frivolous, grand seigneur type, because he allowed himself to be surprised.
But Frederick the Great was himself surprised at Hochkirch. So far
from being guilty of carelessness, Soubise, on the contrary, exhibited an
excess of anxiety. Already on the march from Mucheln to Obschiitz he
had feared being attacked, and, to protect the left wing of his marching
columns, had left behind detached bodies of troops — eleven battalions of
French and Croats, twelve good French squadrons and three of Austrian
hussars, the last under no less important a leader than Laudon. These
fifteen squadrons might, if used at the right point, have decided the day
to the disadvantage of Seydlitz. Nothing better illustrates the difference
between Soubise and Frederick than that the latter, on withdrawing
towards Merseburg, had only left behind to watch those detachments
a quite insignificant force — a single battalion against eleven, seven
squadrons against fifteen.
It was chiefly through squandering his cavalry that Soubise lost
the battle. According to the tactics and armaments of those times,
cavalry was the most effective of the three engines of warfare. Soubise
had 5500 horse, Frederick 5000. But, owing to the wrong dispositions
of the French Commander-in-chief, his slight numerical superiority was
changed at a critical moment into a pronounced inferiority; 8800 of
the Combined Army were attacked and beaten by Seydlitz' 4600 men.
General von Seydlitz had his squadrons so firmly in hand that, after
defeating the enemy's cavalry, he was able to lead them in good order
against the right wing of the French infantry. His success in this
manoeuvre won for Seydlitz imperishable laurels. Even Prussian troops
did not always understand bow to make best use of their victory. But
272 The " Army of Observation." [1757-8
Seydlitz possessed the power of maintaining strict discipline in his
whole force, from the major-generals down to the common soldier. He
would not permit the pursuit of the enemy's cavalry to be continued
longer than to the point at which the French squadrons were rendered
harmless ; then, his whole thirty-eight squadrons wheeled round to the
right and attacked the French infantry and artillery. The Prussian
cavalry dominating the plain, the French artillery was prevented by fear
of the enemy's horsemen, from falling into position. Consequently, the
Prussian artillery, little embarrassed by fire from the French guns, was
free to direct its own mainly on the enemy's infantry : which it did with
excellent eifect. The Prussian cannonade and cavalry charges shattered
the French infantry so rapidly and so completely that Frederick's
battalions, by that time deployed and advancing, found little left for
them to do. Only about seven battalions of the Prussian line of battle
fired a series of charges; this sufliced to rout the entire French foot,
The whole action lasted only a single hour.
The Prussian losses amounted to not more than 550 men. Those of
the French army were far greater, reaching about 7000 men, though
certainly not beyond what a great military Power like France could
bear without being shaken in the slightest degree. Nor did the French at
Rossbach forfeit their old reputation for bravery. One company of the
Piedmont regiment was nearly wiped out by Prussian grape-shot. Of
the 3800 cavalry which fought against Seydlitz not fewer than 1000 were
killed or wounded. But the insubordination of the army which the
Prince of Soubise had forced, against his will, to stay in the region of
the Saale was notorious and evident. Even on the battle-field there
was among the French forces much disorder, want of guidance, and dis-
agreement. In any case, Europe, to its astonishment, recognised that
the French army was no longer what it had been. Nowhere was the
impression thus created stronger than in London. Pitt breathed more
freely, and the old King seemed to have recovered his youth — it was
long since he had seemed to be in such spirits. The ratification of the
Convention of Klosterzeven and the disbandment of the army at Stade
were now definitely refused. In 1757 the British Parliament had
reluctantly voted £lQ4ifiQ0 for the Army of Observation; the grant
made in 1758 amounted to ^£"1,200,000. As Pitt expressed it in the
Lower House, the Army of Observation was to become an "Army of
Operations." That the Minister was able to obtain money from the
representatives of the English people for the unpopular Hanoverian
war, was one of the most important consequences of the battle of
Rossbach. It may be noted here in anticipation that the allied " Army
of Operations," which was now commanded by Prince Ferdinand of
Brunswick, drove and kept the French out of Germany. The Court
of Versailles despatched armies of continuously increasing size against
the allies, because the defeat of Prince Ferdinand was the preliminary
1757] The AvMrians in Silesia. 273
condition of the participation of France in the military operations
against Frederick. For France the maintenance of the system estab-
lished by the Peace of Westphalia in Germany depended on the
overthrow of the King of Prussia. Besides, the war which the French
were carrying on at the same time with England had gradually, both
at sea and in coimtries across the sea, taken a turn unfavourable to
France. The French were threatened with the loss of their colonies.
All the greater was their desire to secui'e the Austrian Netherlands,
which Austria had promised to make over to France, if Silesia was
reconquered for the House of Habsburg. Once before, at the Peace
of Aix-la-Chapelle in 1748, her colonies had been restored to France
on condition that she evacuated so much of Belgium as had been
conquered by a French army. For these reasons, the Court of Versailles,
during the whole Seven Years' War from first to last, made the greatest
possible sacrifices for the sake of the continental war. But Ferdinand
of Brunswick intercepted all these blows. The French vanish almost
entirely out of the sphere of Frederick the Great's military struggles ;
and, on this accoimt, they will not be mentioned again in the course of
the present chapter, except in the way of a single cursory reference.
Such were the indirect results of the battle of Rossbach ; the direct
consisted in the retreat of the Combined Army towards the Main and
the interior of Franconia; so that Frederick's magazines in Leipzig,
Wittenberg, Torgau, Dresden, and elsewhere, were no longer threatened.
The King was now at liberty to march into Silesia against the Austrians
without having any fears for his rear. In Silesia, at the time of the
battle of Rossbach, 43,000 Austrians under General Nadasdy were laying
siege to Schweidnitz, while 60,000 under Prince Charles and Daun
protected the besieging lines. The Duke of Bevem, who was stationed
in face of them with an army which had, particularly by desertions,
melted down from 41,000 to 28,000 men, was urged by Frederick to take
advantage of the division in the Austrian forces in order to attack them.
But Bevem was no more a great general than Lehwaldt. He hesitated
over the attack, till Schweidnitz, on November 11, capitulated, six days
after the battle of Rossbach. The fortress, which had been newly built
after the King's own ideas, had been held for seven weeks against
43,000 Austrians; nevertheless, the defence had not been conducted
with much energy, and within the garrison treachery and desertion
played into the hands of the besiegers. The fall of Schweidnitz cost
King Frederick 7000 men, about the same number as the French had
lost at Rossbach, not counting the losses of the Imperial army. More-
over, Nadasdy seized in Schweidnitz sufficient provisions to keep 88,000
men for two months, and helped himself to a war-exchequer containing
330,000 thalers — in the then financial condition of the King of Prussia
a sum of considerable weight in the balance. After the capture of
Schweidnitz almost all the Austrian forces united and marched on Breslau,
c. it. H, VI. ca. IX, 18
274 Frederick II and German Protestant feeling. [i767
Bevem had now to contend against 83,000 Austrians instead of 60,000.
On November 22, the Prince of Lorraine and Daun forced their way
over the Lohe, and the battle of Breslau was lost by the small Prussian
army. In moderately good order the Prussians retreated through the
town of Breslau to the opposite bank of the Oder, where their general
was during a reconnaissance taken prisoner by Croats.
His successor, General von Kyau, retreated with the army towards
Glogau and thus left Breslau exposed. This retreat of Kyau's was a
grave error. The danger of the cautious and slow-moving Austrians
effecting the transit of the Oder was lessened by the fact that the
victors of Rossbach had already advanced as far as Gorlitz. With a
rapidity of which in those days only Prussian troops seemed capable, the
King's army marched on to Breslau. In spite, however, of Frederick's
threats and exhortations to his generals, the governor of Breslau, the
aged General von Lestwitz, capitulated without offering any resistance.
The garrison was granted a free conduct to Glogau ; but most of the non-
commissioned officers and nearly all the privates had deserted so soon as the
Austrians had entered the city, so that all ten battalions simply ceased to
exist. Before this the Duke of Severn's regiments had already been
weakened to an extraordinary degree by desertion. Of the 13,000 men
who, before the battle of Breslau, figured in the official list of Bevem's
army as lost, 6000 were marked as deserters^ Such were the feelings
pervading the Prussian as weU as the Austrian army in consequence of the
system of the press-gang, the brutal treatment of the men, and their
indifference to the despotic governments for which they were forced to
spill their blood. A notable exception among the German troops of
that period were the 14,000 men whom Frederick led from Thuringia
into Silesia. Full advantage had been taken of the many opportunities
of desertion offered by the cross- and counter-marches of September
and October, when no supplies were furnished from the magazines ; but
the soldiery were billeted on the population, and those who remained
might be trusted. Another force, of an ideal kind, operated in
Frederick's favour. The belief in Luther and Calvin in Germany had
not died out so completely as the King supposed; and this was the
reason why the defeat of the French was hailed with jubilation by all
German Protestants. For in the French army at this time — not more
than a generation before the Revolution — the traditions of Catholic
intolerance were still so alive, that Soubise' soldiers frequently desecrated
the altars and chalices of the Protestant churches. Even among the
cool and calculating frequenters of the Paris Exchange a fear was
expressed, that the King of Prussia might play the deliverer in a war
of religion and thus attain the headship of Germany. But a con-
summation of this kind suited neither the spirit of the times nor
the personality of a Voltairean like Frederick. Anyhow, the aureole
which surrounded the head of the victor of Rossbach had the effect of
1757] Battle of Leuthen. 275
inducing a few thousand soldiers to find their way into his camp — in
part deserters at the capitulation of Breslau, in part stragglers frorri the
garrison of Schweidnitz, who had made their escape out of Austrian
custody on the way to Bohemia, Every sort of reinforcement was a
valuable gain for Frederick, who had to face a tremendous task.
Prince Charles of Lorraine and Daun marched against the King of
Prussia with the object of gaining a position on the Katzbach. Here
Schweidnitz could be covered. With the support of this fortress and of
Liegnitz, which they manned and strengthened, the Austrians might now
venture to take up their winter-quarters in Silesia. But it behoved
the Austrian generals, from the outset, to observe the utmost caution, as
against a foe so eager to strike and so mobile, although they believed
him to be still on the other side of the Katzbach. They therefore, on
December 4, occupied the fortified camp at Leuthen, where their forces
numbered 55,000 men. Here Prince Charles and Daun learned to their
amazement that the King of Prussia had crossed the Katzbach some time
before, and was now at Neumarkt. In reality, he was even nearer, stationed
immediately in front of the Austrians. After the junction of troops
from Thuringia with the forces that had carried out the precipitate
retreat to Glogau, he had under him more than 40,000 men. Prince
Charles and Daun could be in no doubt that they woxild be attacked the
next day.
At sunrise on December 5, the Prussians were on the move and
marched upon the right flank of the Austrians, who had not time to
dispose themselves calmly in order of battle. In the army of Prince
Charles and Daun several battalions were not to be entirely trusted — to
begin with, ten Bavarian battalions, for in those days a bitter antagonism
obtained between Bavaria and Austria; further, fourteen battalions of
Wurtembergers, who hated their ruler, the ally of Austria, as the
tyrannical oppressor of the Estates of his duchy, and passionately
venerated the conqueror of Rossbach as the champion of German
Protestantism. The Austrian generals placed these Bavarian and
Wiirtemberg battalions on the left wing of their line of battle.
Frederick advanced against the right wing, in the direction of Borne;
but by means of a personal reconnaissance he convinced himself of the
extreme difficulty of attacking his adversaries' right wing, owing to the
unevenness of the ground. The left Austrian wing had taken up a still
more favourable position, and seemed almost uneissailable. But Frederick''s
keen eye observed a weak point in the left wing of Prince Charles' position ;
and, with swift resolve, he led his army past the enemy's front (at a
distance of not more than 4000 paces) to the point at which he had
espied this flaw. Thus the attack of the Prussian infantry fell directly
on the Wiirtembergers; and eleven out of their fourteen battalions at
once fled, leaving behind only a few killed and wounded. The advance
tp the front, by General Nadasdy's orders, of some Austrian regiments
CH. IX. 18—2
276 Prq>aratiori,s for the new campaign. [i757-8
only increased the prevailing confusion — Austrians, Bavarians^ WiJrtemT
bergers, the whole of the infantry of Nadasdy's division, were routed,
The main body of Prince Charles' and Daun's forces was still intact.
But the right Austrian wing, which now had no enemy in front of it,
was obliged to make a very wide wheeling movement in order to be able
to take part in the combat. The training of the Austrian infantry was
not careful enough to enable it to carry out so complicated a manoeuvre in
good order. It closed in towards the centre, where the regiments were
massed in so narrow a space that they were incapable of action, and in
parts stood nearly a hundred deep. The execution done by the heavy
Prussian artillery, which was numerically superior to the Austrian, was
proportionately effective. Nevertheless, the Prussians did not win their
victory with ease. Slow and immobile in the matter of tactics, and
strategically devoted to the system of the defensive pure and simple, the
Austrian army, within the limits of this same system, developed a notable
tenacity. Of 40,000 Prussians over 6000 were kUled or wounded in a
combat lasting not more than four hours. But the Austrian losses were
enormous. In prisoners alone they lost 22,000 men. Moreover, Breslau,
with a garrison of 18,000 men, surrendered at discretion. Later, the
same fate befell the Austrians in Schweidnitz. All in all, out of the
90,000 Austrians in Lower Silesia, 55,000 were killed or taken prisoners.
The defeat was nothing short of a catastrophe.
Had Frederick the Great had modern armies at his command, he
would now have marched on Vienna and there dictated terms of peace.
Instead of this, it was high time for him to occupy winter-quarters.
Through the winter, operations on the Prussian side were confined to
Pomerania. Here the Swedes not only retired before the army of
Field-Marshal Lehwaldt, whose forces were greatly superior, beyond the
Prussian frontier, but they also evacuated Swedish Pomerania as far as
Stralsund and the island of Riigen. The Prussians were only prevented
from occupying these points by lack of a fleet : moreover, they could
now raise war contributions in Swedish PomiBrania and Mecklenburg, and
impress recruits. In Mecklenburg they gathered into the service 4000,
no insignificant aid for the small Prussian State, threatened by nearly
the whole continent of Europe. The King summoned all his energies
and worked hard to render his army complete for the coming campaign.
It was not possible to cover expenses by raising taxes, for in this despotic
State the taxes on the unprivileged classes were so high in times of peace
that to put any abnormal strain on the taxation of that part of the
population was out of the question. To tax the privileged classes would
not have been compatible with the spirit of the King's internal policy. '
In this dilemma Frederick took refuge in the debasement, of the coinage,
and in paying his officials in paper instead of cash. Thus, in 1758, as in '
1757, 150,000 Prussian troops were again put into the field. The Austrian '
army, on the other hand, had shrunk from 133,000 to 85,000 men. In 1757'
1758] Op^ations against Austrians, Swedes and Russians. 277
the King of Prussia had directed his attack against Bohemia rather than
Moravia, which he would have preferred, but which lay too far east to
enable him to send detachments thence against the French. When, at
the end of April, 1758, Frederick opened his new campaign, Ferdinand of
Brunswick was trying to come up with the French on the further side of
the Rhine, across which the bulk of their military forces had been driven
back. Frederick, who had now nothing more to fear from the French,
had to prepare to meet, about midsummer, the Russian army in
the Mark Brandenburg and Silesia. The interval he judiciously pro-
posed to employ in an expedition into Moravia. Here lay Olmiitz,
the only important fortress which the Austrians held against Prussia ;
moreover, Moravia bordered on Hungary, where, by taking Olmiitz, the
King of Prussia hoped to stir up a rebellion among the Protestants.
Field-Marshal Daun, who after the defeat of Prince Charles at Leuthen
had succeeded him as Commander-in-chief of the Austrian army, had
concentrated his forces in Bohemia and expected to be attacked there,
when he heard that the Prussians were marching on Olmiitz. He now
led his army straightway into Moravia, and encamped on May 24 in an
unassailable position at Gewitsch, two good days' march from Olmiitz.
His forces consisted of about 70,000 men ; those of Frederick before
Olmiitz were not more numerous, for the Prussians had to present
a three-sided front. Prince Henry of Prussia covered Saxony with
35,000 men against General Serbelloni in western Bohemia, where the
army of the Empire was stationed in conjunction with one corps of
Austrians. Serbelloni, if he liked, could also avail himself of a Saxon
corps at Linz, 10,000 strong, composed of men on whom Frederick had
forced the military oath and who had then deserted from the Prussian
army. These Saxons were marching into France, where the Govern-
ment had taken them into pay. On the other hand, Soubise' army was
expected in Austria, having started from the Main in June, 30,000
strong, for western Bohemia. France having increased her subsidies to
Sweden for the coming year, the Swedish army in Germany was to be
raised from 20,000 to 30,000.
For the present, 22,000 Prussians blockaded Stralsund, commanded
by General-Lieutenant von Dohna, successor to Field-Marshal Lehwaldt.
Nevertheless Dohna's army was not destined to act alone against Sweden,
but also against Russia. The command of the armies of the Tsar, like
that of Maria Theresa's, had changed. The aged Aprakin was being
tried by Court-martial for evacuating East Prussia, and Lieutenant-
General Fermor, who had been appointed to the command in his stead,
had, after reoccupying East Prussia, advanced with 32,000 men on Polish
West Prussia. He had reinforcements in prospect, and was negotiating
with the Swedes for joint action in Brandenburg and Pomerania. King
Frederick, pressed by adversaries in so many quarters, could, as has
been already mentioned, only muster 70,000 before Olmiitz — a very
278 Siege of OlmUtz. [i758
inadequate force; for the fortress had to be invested, the trenches
occupied, and the besieging lines covered against Daun. The inferiority
of the Prussians in numbers prevented the King of Prussia, who never
forgot Kolin, from attempting to attack Daun in battle. He preferred
to take up a position south-west of Olmiitz near Prossnitz, where within
three hours he could collect upwards of 30,000 men. If Daun wished
to relieve Olmiitz by fighting, he would be obliged to attack Frederick
at Prossnitz. This, however, was not at present contemplated by the
Austrian general, who knew that Frederick's genius and the mobility of
the Prussian infantry would give them an overwhelming advantage in a
pitched battle, and who looked out for other means of relieving Olmiitz.
In the meantime he calmly and conscientiously drilled his very numerous
recruits at Gewitsch. The Prussians invested Olmiitz on May 8, but
only succeeded in opening their first parallel on the 28th. The great
lapse of time between these two proceedings was attributed to the army's
heavy besieging wagons being retarded by the badness of the roads.
Olmiitz was a good fortress of the second class, occupied by a garrison
of 9000 men under General von Marschall, an elderly but vigorous
commandant.
The King of Prussia affirmed that his engineers made many grave
blunders during the siege ; and it was nearly five weeks before the third
parallel was finished, while several successful skirmishes on the part of
the besieged had achieved a partial destruction of the earthworks.
Added to this, the ammunition and supplies of the besieging batteries
gave out. A convoy of 4000 wagons was being brought to meet
the need from Neisse to the army; but near the pass of Domstadtl
General Laudon, who here made himself a name in the world's history,
attacked the convoy on June 30. The Austrians were not much stronger
in numbers than the 13,000 Prussians who escorted the convoy ; but the
latter had covered a march of forty miles with wagon-trains. The
Austrians, on the contrary, had at their disposal the Croat light
infantry, which seemed created on purpose for such enterprises and was
far superior to the corresponding Prussian arm, the so-called "free
battalions." These Croat troops were, as Frederick the Great told the
British Major-General Yorke, the best in the Austrian army, which he, as
a rule, estimated highly; and they were very loyal to their flag; they
never deserted, and their mobility was irrepressible. For the attack on
the Neisse convoy 2500 Croats were detached. Thus the combat at
Domstadtl was lost by the Prussians, wht) were obliged to blow up their
wagons in case they should fall into the enemy's hand. Of the gunpowder^
cannon-balls, and supplies of various sorts, nothing reached the besiegers
at Olmiitz.
" Convoi attaqti^, convoi battu,'" said Frederick the Great, quoting
an old military proverb, and he reproached no one for the mishap at
Domstadtl. But the blockade of Olmiitz was wrecked and had to be
1758] Russian and Swedish operations. 279
immediately raised. The Prussian army turned from Moravia into
Bohemia. Its baggage was enormous. Besides dragging with it its
siege-train, it had 2000 sick and wounded — altogether 4000 wagons,
which, stretched out on a single road, made a line forty miles in length,
like the convoy of Domstadtl. The King of Prussia, in order to cover
his train of wagons, was obliged to split his army. In order to effect
his purpose, he detached three divisions of 8000 men, and temporarily
broke up his army into two halves, one of which marched in front j the
other behind, the baggage. This arrangement afforded the Austrians an
uncommonly favourable opportunity for attack. But, owing to Daun's
infinite caution, the Prussians arrived after a twelve days' march at
Koniggratz without any losses worth mentioning. Here the King
could relieve himself of his baggage. General Fouque conducted it
to Glatz by way of Nachod, where he then took up his own position to
cover the conveyance of provisions into the King's camp. In addition,
Frederick resorted to a way of feeding his troops which, in a peculiar
way, struck a medium between the requisition and magazine systems.
As July had come and the corn was ripe in the fields, the soldiers were
made to thresh, prepare, and clean the grain and deliver it at the bakery.
Each regiment was allotted a certain number of bushels which it had to
deliver, and immediately after the delivery the com was ground and
made into bread. The King had now 40,000 men in hand for combat ;
while Daun had at his disposal 50,000 regular troops and 20,000
irregular, who, generally speaking, did not count in a pitched battle.
Avoiding a battle, Daun took up a strong position, opposite the enemy
lying at Koniggratz, at Chlum, which he fortified artistically with
redoubts and barricades. The Eling of Prussia, after remaining a
fortnight at Koniggratz without getting a chance of battle, was, when
July drew to its end, compelled to leave Bohemia, as he had left Moravia,
without obtaining any result; in 1757, and in 1758, offensive action
against Austria had come to nothing.
Action against Russia could no longer be postponed, for General
Fermor was now encamped with his main army at Meseritz, on the
frontier between what was then the kingdom of Poland (to whose
territory Russia had free access) and the Neumark of Brandenburg.
" A terrible time of trial for our poor family and all who call themselves
Prussians...," Frederick, on evacuating Bohemia, wrote to Prince Henry.
" But in spite of all that passes within me I put the best outward face
on a bad business, and try so far as I can not to discourage those whom
it is my duty as a general to inspire with hope and generous self-
confidence." Fermor advanced into Brandenburg with 50,000 men and
marched on Ciistrin, an important arsenal at the confluence of the Oder
with the Warthe. Dohna's army had meanwhile given up the blockade
of Stralsund in order to stop the way of the Russians. Thus the Swedes
were free. The internal condition of the Scandinavian kingdoms made
280 Russians and Prussians on the Oder. [1758
it impossible that they could put into the field the 30,000 men
promised by them. A corps of 16,000 Swedes still continued to
occupy Prussian Pomerania and Mecklenburg, commanded by iGeneraU
Lieutenant Count Hamilton, a Scotchman by birth. On August 23
there arrived at Hamilton's headquarters at Friedland in Mecklenburg-
Strelitz a Swedish ofiicer attached to the Russian headquarters. He was
escorted by Cossacks, and his coming was entirely unexpected by the
Swedes. He brought despatches from Perm or in which Hamilton was
informed that the Russians were bombarding Ciistrin, and that a detached
corps under General RumyantseflF had occupied Schwedt. By means of
the bridge there across the Oder, Hamilton's 16,000 men and the 12,000
belonging to RumyantsefF were to unite, according to Termor's intentions.
Hamilton acquiesced in the designs of his Russian colleague; the Swedish
troops evacuated Pomerania and Mecklenburg-Strelitz as far as the
Uckermark and marched on Schwedt, taking Prenzlau by the way.
Ciistrin was not gravely imperilled, because the Russians had with them
no siege appliances. Their bombardment left the fortifications unaffected.
All the same, the town with the arsenal and a large magazine of com
was burnt ; and such losses of material of war were grave disasters for
Prussia in her actual condition. The barbarous ravages committed by
the Russians, especially by the Cossacks and Calmucks, in the open towns
and plains of the Neumark, were also injurious to Frederick from a
military point of view. The financial position of the Prussian monarchy
was becoming critical. Before the expedition into Moravia Frederick
had very unwillingly concluded a subsidy treaty with England. After
Rossbach and Leuthen, he was again in hopes of annexing Saxony;
but he hampered himself in the achievement of this political end, by
making the Prussian State financially dependent on another Great
Power. While still in camp at Olmiitz, Frederick had written to his
ambassador in London that he trusted that for the present year he
would not require to draw subsidies. Now, no choice was left him but
to draw the first £200,000.
The bulk of his Silesian army was left by the King stationed at
Kloster-Griissau in Lower Silesia against Daun, while he gave over
the supreme command to Margrave Charles of Brandenburg-Schwedt,
attaching to him as tactical adviser Field-Marshal Keith. He himself
led a corps on Custrin, the men being subjected to exertions as excessive
as those of their cross- and counter-marchings in the autumn of 1757.
Especially the last forced marches through the deep sandy soil of the
Mark reduced the infantry to a state of utter exhaustion. On August 22,
the King's corps united with General Dohna's army at Gorgast, west of
Ciistrin. On the 23rd the Oder was crossed, the barrier which separated
the Prussian forces from the Russian army besieging Ciistrin. Already
Prussian hussars came in contact with Russian dragoons and Cossacks
and scattered them right and left. Fermor raised the siege of Custrin,
1758] Advance of Frederick II. 281
but refused to retreat. Moreover, owing to the unwieldy nature of the
Russian troops, it would have been scarcely possible for him to escape
Frederick, who was anxious for battle. He succeeded, however, in finding
a defensive position almost as strong as those selected by Daun with
so masterly a discrimination. Fermor, in posting his army behind the
Mietzel, the swampy banks of which are only passable in certain places,
rendered his front and flanks safe from attack. " I wish that the King
would attack me here," said he to General Count Saint-Andre,
who was attached to the Russian headquarters as Austrian military
adviser ; " I should beat him." Frederick had written quite to the same
effect a few days earlier to his sister, the Princess Amalia : " I am not
afraid in the least of this ragged crew, but only of the streams and
swamps amongst which they can hide." Unable to attack the enemy
either in front or flank, he had to turn them completely in order to
force them to battle. For Fermor's position, as Frederick ascertained,
was less unapproachable in its rear.
On August 25, at half-past three in the morning, having drawn up
his army, he crossed the Mietzel with it close to the Neudamm mill by
the Kersten bridge, and marched through the thinly-wooded pine forest
of Massin. Thence the Prussians emerged 40,000 strong on to the
undulating plain of Zomdorf, where the Russians stood in about the
same strength. After the battle the King of Prussia told his reader,
de Katt, that the Russians might have managed so as to have attacked
his marching columns as they came undeployed out of the swampy wood.
But such manoeuvres presupposed a resolution in the leader and a mobility
in the troops in which the Russians were, like the Austrians, altogether
lacking. When the Cossacks announced to Fermor that the enemy
obviously intended to reach the rear of the Russian position by the
wood of Massin, Fermor ordered the army to turn right about face.
How little the Russian general had calculated on the possibility of his
opponent's daring to turn him is shown by the fact that he had
directed some of his heavy baggage to take up a position at Gross-
Kamin, close to Batzlow, where the Prussian army came out of the wood.
Considering the enormous importance of the provision wagon in the age
of the magazine system, the taking of Fermor's baggage would in itself
alone have signified a victory for the Prussian army over the Russian.
But the King, who was weak in infantry, believed at this critical
moment that he could not afford to detach any troops in the direction
of Gross-Kamin. The escort of the Russian baggage was, it is true, not
numerous; but they had built a battery and thrown up earthworks.
Furthermore, 2000 Cossacks under Major-General Jefremofi', coming
from Landsberg on the Warthe, were in full march on Gross-Kamin,
where indeed they only arrived on the evening of the day of the battle.
At any rate, Frederick left the Russian baggage on the left untouched,
and marched on Fermor's army, which, after reversing its position, no
282 Battle of Zorndorf. [i758
longer had a safe line of retreat. For the swamps of the Mietzel, which
in the eighteenth century were not even passable by single pedestrians,
were now in rear of the Russians instead of in their front. Fermor
himself had destroyed the bridges at Kutzdorf and Chuartschen, because,
according to his opinion, the lower Mietzel formed the enemy's line of
advance. That in reality his own line of retreat would be across that
river in consequence of the bold evolutions of his formidable foe, had
been as little foreseen by him as had the danger to his baggage-train
at Gross-Kamin. Had Frederick succeeded in actually carrying out his
masterly plan of battle, his success would have been even more complete
than it had been at Leuthen ; the entire hostile army must have been
cut off and annihilated. And he needed, too, to gain a second crush-
ing victory; for the distressful situation of the autumn of 1757 had
returned. Not only were the Russians and Swedes in the Mark, but
Laudon as well, who, with the greater part of a detachment of some
8000 men, was stationed at Cottbus on the Spree. The Hungarian
hussars, desirous of coming into touch with the Russians, made raids
throughout the south-eastern Mark and the adjoining districts of Silesia,
levying contributions everywhere. Though the excesses they committed
were not to be compared with the atrocities of the Cossacks and
Calmucks, they were bad enough to excite the anger of Daun and the
Austrian officers. The Austrian army was now also encamped on Prussian
territory, at Gorlitz in Lusatia. Daun had already for several weeks
thought of leading the main Austrian army by way of Cottbus to Berlin,
so soon as the King of Prussia marched against the Russians.
Qn the morning of August 25, a burning hot day, Frederick rode
forth at the head of the eight battalions which composed his advance-
guard. The Prussian army carriedfOut a flank march past the whole
length of the Russian front, now facing south, and wheeled into order
of battle between Zorndorf and Wilkersdorf. The King's plan was to
attack with his left wing, which marched up behind Zorndorf, the
enemy's right. The Prussian right wing, made weaker than the left,
was to remain in abeyance; while Fermor had expected the reverse
tactics : namely, that he would be attacked on his left wing while the
Prussian left remained stationary, so as to cover a possible Prussian
retreat on Ciistrin. But Frederick, in projecting his plan of battle,
had not thought in the least of the precautions imputed to him by
Fermor, and was far less intent on preserving at all costs his communi-
cation with Ciistrin than on directing his attack to the weakest spot in
the Russian position. Even in the contingency of his losing the battle
and his connexion with Ciistrin, a line of retreat was open to him
through the forest of Massin infinitely superior to Fermor's backgrounid
of Mietzel quagmires.
Fermor's error led to considerable mistakes in his dispositions. The
heavy artillery made a much weaker show on the Russian than on the
1758] Battle of Zorndorf. 283
Prussian side, Fermor having only 60 heavy guns, Frederick 117. When
the Russian general thought that his left wing would be attacked, he
massed nearly the whole of his heavy artillery there; while Frederick
distributed his heavy guns equally along both wings. The right Russian
wing, which Frederick intended to attack, suffered terribly, being imder
fire for two whole hours from heavy guns, to which it could only respond
by means of the light regimental cannon. The attack of the Prussian
infantry followed at 11 o'clock, after the battalions had been on the
move since about 4 a.m. in the glaring heat of the sun.
Even after Frederick had by his turning movement frustrated
Fermor's plan of battle, the Russians still had an excellent defensive
position. At Prague, and especially at Leuthen, the Prussian infantry
had been able to outflank the enemy's ; but at Zorndorf such a manoeuvre
was not to be thought of. The Russian infantry lay against the Zaber-
gnind, a ravine which at that time was so swampy that, though cavalry
might possibly get through it, it was impassable for infantry. The King
of Prussia therefore ordered the left wing of his infantry to make a
frontal attack. Herein lay the AchiUes-heel of Frederick's scheme of
battle. The King, who spoke contemptuously of the Russian army as
tag, rag, and bobtail, was severely undeceived on this head at Zorndorf.
The Russians fought very well, although they had been most terribly
handled by the opening cannonade of the Prussian heavy artillery ; but
they had a powerful reserve of regimental cannon which were very
skilfully used, and inflicted fearful losses on the Prussian infantry when
it had come close enough.
Shortly before the battle Fermor had informed his troops that the
method of the Prussian infantry consisted in insolently advancing and
beginning to fire before they reached the proper distance ; which habit
should be courageously met, by relying on the effect of the artillery and
of reasonable infantry fire at the correct distance. These instructions
were applied with so much success that the attacking Prussian infantry
began to waver. Hitherto, it had not been supported by the cavalry of
Frederick's left wing ; half of which had been placed behind the infantry.
The other half, consisting of thirty-one squadrons, on the opposite side
of the Zabergrund, where Seydlitz was in command, could not think
of taking the ravine so long as the Russian infantry were close to it.
Accordingly, Seydlitz' instructions forbade his making the attempt till the
Prussian infantry should have shattered the battalions of the right Russian
wing. But, instead of being shattered, they pressed on victoriously,
mastered the heavy batteries of the left Prussian wing, and reduced its
infantry to such a state of demoralisation that only the vigorous inter-
vention of the cavalry posted behind the infantry saved the left wing
of the Prussian infantry from a complete rout. These advances, which
Fermor personally commanded on his right wing, were supported at
enormous sacrifices by the badly-horsed Russian cavalry. The Prussians
284 Battle of Zorndorf. [i758
utterly outnumbered their adversaries in this arm ; for, all in all, 1S,000
Prussian fought against 3000 Russian horse — the 3000 Cossacks being of
no real significance in a pitched battle.
After the victorious advance of the Russian right wing had put an
end to its contact with the Zabergrund, Seydlitz could cross the defile.
He did so in good order, and fell on the enemy's flank. The infantry of
the Russian right wing and its handful of squadrons found themsdves
involved in defeat, and fled in the same state of demoralisation which
had taken possession earlier of the Prussian battalions. But there
remained a distinct numerical difference, to the disadvantage of the
Prussians. Of their thirty-eight battalions, twenty-three were routed ;
of the Russian fifty-seven, only about eighteen ; for one-half only of the
exposed Russian wing had been included in the combat, while the other
had not gone forward with the rest, but had remained quietly in its
original position of defence. The reason was that, in the middle of the
right Russian wing, lay a second watery swamp, called the Galgengrund.
Those of Termor's battalions which had not advanced with the rest now
stood on the other side of this ravine, in close contiguity with it and
unbroken. For Seydlitz' squadrons to capture the defile and to take the
Russian infantry in flank was out of the question. This would have
required a frontal attack by Prussian infantry; but the infantry of the
Prussian left wing was now hors de combat.
In a word, the King's assault had been beaten off, and his plan of
battle absolutely wrecked. His features revealed his anxiety, when, at
one o'clock in the afternoon, he rode from the beaten left wing of his
line of battle to the right. Maurice of Anhalt-Dessau, fearing that the
sight of the King's clouded, brooding countenance might discourage the
troops, wheeled round with assumed hilarity, waved his hat and exclaimed,
" Victoria ! " The troops joined in the cheer, and the English ambassador^
Andrew Mitchell, who was present with the King of Prussia, credulously
expressed his congratulations to the sovereign. The King listened to him
politely and exhibited perfect composure ; but, when they had ridden on,
he said to Mitchell : " My good friend, things are going badly with the
left wing. I shall put them straight ; but do not follow me." Then he
ordered the right wing, which hitherto had been inactive, to charge.
It was a desperate resolve, for the Russian left wing was much better
protected against a turning movement than the right. It leant on
the village of Zicher and a series of woods, where neither cavalry nor
infantry, fighting in the stiff linear formation of the eighteenth century,
could penetrate. The frontal attack of the Prussian battalions was
repulsed with much slaughter by the guns and regimental cannon of the
Russians ; and the handful of Russian cavalry made as brilliant charges
as their comrades had made on the right wing. Thus the disorganisation
of the right wing of the Prussian infantry was complete. The King, like
Field-Marshal Schwerin at Prague, seized a flag, but his heroism was
1758] Results of the battle. 285
unavailing; the men refused to be taken under fire again. The com-
mander-in-chief of the left Russian wing was Browne, a Jacobite emigrant
from Ireland, and the uncle of the Austrian Field-Marshal Browne who
fell at Prague. He made the same pardonable blunder in tactics which
Fermor had committed as commander on the right. Instead of, after
the repulse of the hostile infantry, using exclusively his cavalry, small
though it was in numbers, for rapid pushes, success misled him into
sending his infantry also to charge in the open plain, where the King
of Prussia, to paralyse the onslaught of Browne's battalions, massed
almost his whole cavalry, the bulk of Seydlitz' squadrons included. The
combat now again took a turn in Frederick's favour ; but the defensive
advantages of Fermor's position were still not exhausted. As the right
wing of the Russian battle line was traversed by the Galgengrund, so
the left was cut into two parts by the Doppelgrund, Of the twenty-two
battalions on the Russian left wing, again only a portion had assumed
the offensive ; those which had remained on the right of the Doppel-
grund had not been scattered by Seydlitz' cavalry, and were able to
arrest its victorious advance, thanks to the difficult lie of the Doppel-
grimd itself.
The battle had begun at 9 o'clock in the forenoon, and only at
nightfall did it stop, without having been decided. The losses on both
sides reached an enormous height. Of 40,000 Prussians (according to
published lists) 10,000 were killed or wounded, including over 300
officers. Yet these numbers are perhaps not altogether trustworthy, as
there are indications that there may have been as many as 15,000
or 16,000 Prussians killed or wounded. For a small country like
Prussia, such sacrifices were irreparable ; a large empire like Russia was
better able to bear losses of officers and men, even if more considerable
than those of the Prussians. Fermor withdrew his forces for the night
towards the Mietzel, near Kutzdorf; the swampy ravines mentioned
above separated the combatants. On the morning of August 26,
Russian forces again crossed the Zabergrund and appeared on the
heights of Zorndorf. Bearing with them the light baggage of the
Russian army, they formed the vanguard of Fermor's retreat, which he
wished to take the direction of Gross-Kamin, where lay his heavy baggage.
The King of Prussia, noticing this forward movement, hoped to find an
opportunity for a fresh encounter ; for he was bitterly disappointed by
the result of the day of battle. He personally reconnoitred tiie enemy's
change of position at Zorndorf; and his passionate eagerness led him all
too near his opponents' lines, so that' he and his small cavalry escort
were suddenly subjected to a lively cannonade from a hidden Russian
battery. By a miracle the King escaped unhurt.
For the rest, a repetition of the Prussian attack was not to be
thought of seriously. The immense hardships and losses undergone by
Frederick's troops reduced them to a condition as disorganised as that of
286 The Russian retreat. [1758
Fermor's. King Frederick was even without sufficient treidps fit for
action to seize Fermor's heavy baggage at Gross-Kamin ; and Brigadier
Kokoschkin, who was in command there, was able to get into communi-
cation with the Russian army by way of Wilkersdorf and Zorndorf.
Several messages from Kokoschkin to Fermor told how severely the
Prussian army had suffered ; and the Cossacks proved it by capturing
many Prussian soldiers. Thus encouraged, Fermor set out at 2 o'clock
on the morning of August 27 to march past Frederick's left flank
to Gross-Kamin; though the Russian artillery had lost nearly all
their horses or had to give them up for the transport of the wounded.
Prussian historical accounts, generally so extremely severe in their
criticism of Fermor, seem unable to praise sufficiently his masterly
execution of this daring flank march. But, in truth, another fact is
far more remarkable, namely, that on a fine August day between four
and nine in the forenoon, a Russian army could march past Frederick the
Great without being attacked. The Russians had an open plain over
which to move, as the French had at Rossbach, and they were so slow
about it, that to cover a distance of five miles they took quite seven
hours. The Prussian army, even two days after the battle of Zorndorf,
was still, as it were, paralysed. Fermor ordered his heavy baggage-train
from Gross-Kamin to Landsberg on the Warthe, whither he intended to
continue his retreat. This time the King of Prussia sent a detachment
to deal the enemy a blow such as he had himself received at Domstadtl
in Moravia. " This is their richest magazine," the King wrote to Maurice
of Anhalt ; " they have supplies for months on the wagons. If I bum
them, the army must retire head over heels, and I shall be certainly rid
of it. To effect this I have laid a plan and I will do everything I can
to carry it out ; that will be better than a battle." The last part of
this sentence must, of course, not be interpreted too literally. On the
morning of Zorndorf the King could, if he had liked, have taken the
Russian baggage without a battle. Now, the enterprise failed because
the detached troops came upon Rumyantsefi^s corps, which Fermor, after
the action at Zorndorf, had recalled from Schwedt and ordered to proceed,
together with his heavy baggage, to Landsberg on the Warthe. Hither
the Russian main army also directed its march on August 31 from
Gross-Kamin.
The Bang of Prussia followed the retreating enemy, looking out for
an opportunity to attack him ; but Fermor exposed no weak spots, and,
failing these, Frederick felt he was not strong enough for a conflict, just
as already on the 27th he had evaded risking a renewal of the battle.
Unmolested, the Russian main army and its heavy baggage-train effected
their junction with Rumyantsefi^s division, which was un weakened by
fighting, at Landsberg on the Warthe. Frederick, after a violent
inA*rard struggle, was forced to acknowledge himself unable to achieve
anything decisive against the Russians, and resolved on a return to the
1758] Fermor's operations in Pomerania. 28T
southern theatre of war, where Daun's operations Were beginning to
become dangerous. The King's mood was one of extreme irritation;
in spite of the enormous losses undergone by his infantry, he was far
from being satisfied by their efforts at Zomdorf. He wrote to Prince
Henry, who was covering Saxony against the army of the Empire and
the Austrians, that he had better inculcate discipline into his battalions:
"N.B. Teach them to respect the stick." The King's march, again
accomplished with extraordinary rapidity, was directed to Dresden, for
the capture of which Daun had wished to use the time of Frederick's
absence. But, as the latter united with Prince Henry just at the right
moment, the Austrian attack on the Saxon capital was averted.
At the same time, however, the King of Prussia learned that the Swedes
had advanced from Prenzlau to Neu-Ruppin. Though, after Zorndorf,
General Hamilton could hardly hope that Fermor would hold out to
him a helping hand, he was not discouraged, but led his troops into the
heart of the Mark and threatened the capital. Frederick had to detach
immediately, from the body of troops which he had brought' from
Landsberg to Dresden, eight battalions and five squadrons for Berlin.
"Our infantry regiments are becoming postillions and couriers," Frederick
wrote to his brother. Before the Russian invasion of the Mark,
the King had confronted his Russian and Swedish opponents with, in
all, twenty battalions and thirty-five squadrons. Now, he was obliged
to divide, between General Dohna against the Russians and General
WedeU against the Swedes, twenty-nine battalions and forty squadrons.
The King expected that at least Dohna would succeed in manoeuvring
Fermor back across the frontier of the Polish kingdom, which was quite
close to Landsberg. But even this modest success was not achieved,
Fermor remained the greater pait of September stationed at Landsberg
and reorganised his army with the help of RumyantsefTs fresh troops.
From Poland came the Russian sinews of war, stores, and substitutes for
a part of the artillery lost at Zorndorf. Fermor, now again capable
of undertaking operations, determined to stay on in the dominions of
the King of Prussia and marched into Eastern Pomerania, where he
remained during the whole of October. Although he failed in capturing
the strongly fortified port of Kolberg, the Russian troops disquieted the
whole of Eastern Pomerania and the Neumark ; nor was it till November
that they evacuated the former and withdrew into their Polish and East
Prussian winter-quarters. Meanwhile the Swedes devoured the King's
resources in Prussian Pomerania, in the Uckermark, and partly even in
the Neumark. During the whole of September, October, and November,
Hamilton's troops had to be fed by the King's dominions before they
retreated into Swedish Pomerania and took up their winter-quarters there.
A review of the results of the battle of* Zomdorf leaves no doubt
that Frederick would have acted more to his own advantage if on the
fateful August 25 he had contented himself with carrying off the
288 Daun near Dresden. [i758
Russian heavy baggage, instead of aiming at the higher goal of crushing
the hostile forces. But it would have been at variance with a great
genius like Frederick's to act with that sort of moderation, even though
Prince Henry of Prussia, after his fashion one of King Frederick's ablest
generals, was wont to exhibit it. The extraordinary force of Frederick's
character is not fully understood till it is realised what had during his
operations against the Russians been his general conception of his
situation. A few days before the battle of Zorndorf he had been of
opinion that Laudon would extend his invasion through Brandenburg
to Berlin, The destruction of the treasure and public buildings of
Berlin would be so heavy a loss, that on the evening of the day of
battle, Frederick had meditated marching on the next morning with a
division of his army to Guben, thence to cover the capital against
Laudon and Daun. For the King thought it possible that the whole
main Austrian army might advance on Berlin. When he saw, on the
morning after the battle, how completely disorganised the Prussian army
was in all its divisions, he abandoned the march to Guben. Instead, he
impressed upon the Margrave of Brandenburg-Schwedt, whom he had
left behind with the Prussian main army in Lower SUesia, the necessity
of opposing Daun's invasion of the Mark by taking up suitable defensive
positions till he was himself able to hurry to the rescue. The following
was, accordingly, the situation of the King of Prussia immediately before
the battle of Zorndorf. Not only was the very nucleus of his power
attacked by the Russians and Swedes, but he further believed that the
Austrians were encircling him on all sides and endangering his posses-
sion of his own capital. At such a crisis, he ventured, in the rage of
despair — "with the passion of a desperate gambler," it was said in
Prince Henry's entourage — upon attacking the army of Fermor in its
unassailable position at Zorndorf,
In reality, Daun had given up the idea of a march on Berlin and, as
has been related, had turned against Dresden. The absence of the King
lasted from August 1 till September 10; but, before Daun had undertaken
any serious enterprise against Prince Henry, Frederick was back again
and had united with his brother. Margrave Charles also moved towards
Dresden with his main army. There were now 80,000 Prussians in the
environs of that town under the personal command of the King.
Opposite them were encamped 75,000 Austrians and 16,000 of the
Imperial troops, so that Frederick and his opponents were about equal
in strength. No wonder, then, that the King wrote to Prince Henry
that it would be the salvation of the Prussians if Daun received
peremptory orders to attempt some engagement. But Daun did
just the contrary of what Frederick wished. He hid himself in the
camp of Stolpen, east of Dresden, among woods, bog, and moimtains,
where the King dared not attack him. From September 5 till
October 5, Daun persisted in holding out at Stolpen, while Frederick
1758] The Prussians surprised at Hochkirch. 289
was consumed with impatience. Meanwhile, Russians and Swedes had
ravaged, a great part of the Mark Brandenburg and Pomerania.
Further, the Austrians, soon after Frederick's withdrawal from Olmiitz,
had penetrated into Upper Silesia, where they blockaded the fortresses
of Neisse and Kosel, and during the whole of August and September
were a burden on the country. Moreover, their numbers were increased,
by the division commanded by Quarter - Master - General Harsch,
hitherto stationed in Bohemia, and other troops, amounting in aU to
about 30,000 men. On October 5, Harsch' laid siege to Neisse; on
St Theresa's day (October 1.5) he hoped to begin the bombardment.
After Neisse, Kosel was to be bombarded, the capture of which place
would complete the Austrian reconquest of Upper Silesia. "Were
it not for the point d'konneur^ wrote the King in profound depression
to Prince Henry, " I should long ago have done what I often spoke to
you of doing last year. Now, you and I are bound to practise patience ;
meanwhile, life is passing, and, when all things are weighed and con-
sidered, what has it been but care, trouble, sorrow and tribulation .''
Was it worth the trouble to be born .'' " In this mood the King of
Prussia set out on the march to relieve Neisse. The Prussians, who had
started on September 26, found their way barred at Hochkirch on
October 10 by Daun. The position in which the Austrian Field-
Marshal embarrassed Frederick was as impregnable as that of Stolpen
had been. The King determined to turn the Austrian right ; but the
manoeuvre had to be postponed for four days, as a supply of bread
was momentarily expected from the Dresden magazine. Meanwhile, the
Prussians encamped close to the enemy, without sufficient support for
their right wing, in order to lighten their intended flanking march.
The King's attention was called by his generals to the exposiu:e ; but he
ignored the timely warnings. Daun had pushed on a corps under the
Prince of Baden-Durlach in the direction of Gorlitz, whither the King
intended to march after receiving his provisions. Frederick hoped to be
able to surprise this detachment, if he retained touch with the enemy's
main army. Instead of this, however, he was himself surprised. On
October 14, at 5 o'clock in the morning, the exposed right wing of
the Prussians was attacked unawares by the Austrians, whose move-
ments were concealed by a thick fog., Frederick did not succeed in
asserting the superior quality of his troops, because the tactical units
of his army, roused out of sleep, and in disorder, had not time for any
close formation enabling them to jict together. In spite of the efforts
of the King, who exposed himself to the fire of the Austrian guns till
a horse was wounded under him, there was on the Prussian side a
general confused attempt at dispersion. Maurice of Anhalt, in the vain
endeavour to form a manageable order of battle, was severely wounded.
James Keith, of old a combatant for the Pretender in Scotland, met his
death as a Prussian Field-Marshal from an Austrian cannon-ball. The
0. H. H. VI. CB. IX. 19
290 After Hochkirch. [i758
youngest brother of the Queen of Prussia, Prince Francis of Brunswick,
also fell.
The struggle surged hither and thither for five hours. Then, the fog
cleared and the sun shone brightly on the field of battle, strewn by
15,000 dead and wounded. Frederick recognised that the Austrians,
by advancing in accordance with a well thought-out plan which the
various divisions of troops had combined to realise, had won an ad-
vantage which it was impossible to make good. He therefore ordered
a retreat to the heights of Doberschiitz, near Bautzen, four miles from
the battle-field. It was accomplished with such calmness and precision
that the Austrians praised in the Hveliest terms a mancEUvre of which
they said that no army but the Prussian was tactically capable. The
defeated side left the victors the greater part of their baggage, thirty
flags and standards, and a hundred and two guns. A great many
battalions were so shrunk in numbers that one might almost speak of
annihilation. While the King drew upon eight battalions belonging to
Prince Henry's army to repair in some measure his losses, he impressed
upon the Prince not to send any Silesian battalions. Zomdorf and
Hochkirch had somewhat paled the nimbus of Rossbach. It was to be
feared that Silesian soldiers, knowing every stock and stone of their
native province, might desert in too great quantities. Such was the
character of European armies before the French Revolution.
The next evening, the King appeared to his reader, de Katt, depressed,
not to say profoundly dispirited. " I can end the tragedy when I choose,"
he said in a low voice. Then he showed the reader the Apology far
Suicide which he had composed in the autumn of the previous year, and
the poison which he had long carried about with him. Daun wrote to
Harsch, that he would now guarantee the King of Prussia's failing to
relieve Neisse. The Austrian general intended to throw himself again
and again in the way of the enemy, in an impregnable position on the
long road from Bautzen to Neisse. But Frederick, undaunted by his
defeat, marched secretly past Daun's right flank and got ahead of the
astounded Austrian general in the direction of Gorlitz.
Several Prussian historians dispute the fact that Frederick made a
mistake in encamping at Hochkirch, where he was surprised. They
maintain that he had no choice if he was to steal a march on Daun in
reaching Neisse. The real facts of the case contradict this view, for
after the battle of Hochkirch the King of Prussia encamped at Dober-
schiitz, which lay somewhat further back, and was perfectly secure
against surprise ; and from this position he accomplished without much
difficulty the feat of stealing a march upon the enemy. As a matter
of fact, he had selected the perilous position of Hochkirch, not
at. all on account of Neisse, but because he wanted to be near the corps
of the Prince of Baden -Durlach, in order to surprise and scatter it.
The more unfavourable the course of the campaign proved, the more
1759] The Russians in Posen and the Mark. 291
indomitable became the King's eagerness to achieve successes. This wild
impulse sprang from the depths of the soul of this mighty wan-ior ; at
other times the source of his triumphs, it had at Hochkirch carried him
into foolhardiness.
Daun was never foolhardy. After the Prussian army had reached
Gorlitz before him, he felt convinced that the race to Neisse could not
possibly be brought to an end without Frederick sooner or later meeting
the Austrians on ground not absolutely favourable to them. Daun
explained to his generals assembled in a Council of War, that, should
Frederick then seize the opportunity for a battle and defeat the Austrian
army, the forces of the Empress would have no certain line of retreat,
and a second edition of the battle of Leuthen (which God forbid !)
would be scarcely avoidable. The result of these considerations on the
Austrian side was the raising of the siege of Neisse. Soon afterwards
both sides retired into winter-quarters. The anti-Prussian coalition could
boast no positive success, but the campaign of 1758, like that of 1757,
had effected a very significant reduction of the King of Prussia's resources,
and his strength was being visibly exhausted. Instead of 150,000 men, as
in the last two campaigns, Frederick was in 1759 only able to confront
his enemies with 110,000. Contrariwise, the Austrians had recovered from
the enormous losses of the year 1757. While in 1758 they could put only
85,000 men in the field, they opened operations in 1759 with 120,000.
The King of Prussia was once more eager to find Daun ready for
battle. But the latter again entrenched himself in impregnable places —
at first at Miinchengratz in Bohemia, then at Marklissa in Upper
Lusatia. He was waiting for the Russians.
The end of June arrived before the slowly-moving Russian forces
had concentrated. The Empress Elizabeth had given her army a new
Commander-in-chief in the person of General Soltikoff; against whom
Frederick now determined to direct his first great blow. Dohna's army
marched from Landsberg on the Warthe to Thorn in Polish West
Prussia, in order to capture the magazines placed in this and other
West Prussiaui towns, and forming the base of the Russian army. The
King attached to the staff of Dohna, whom he regarded as but
moderately gifted, his own adjutant, General von Wobersnow, with
instructions that it was Dohna's duty to consider all Wobersnow's sug-
gestions as if they came from the King himself. But Frederick had
difficulty in finding men among his generals able to satisfy his exorbitant
claims upon them. On June 29 the Russians completed their concen-
tration at Posen, while the Prussians gave up the march to Thorn as
impracticable, and retreated. For the second time there followed a
Russian invasion of the Mark Brandenburg. On July 20, 40,000
Russians were at Ziillichau, where 27,000 Prussians confronted them.
The King was violently incensed by the proceedings of his generals.
He abused Wobersnow, saying that he was a mediocre commander, who
OH. IX. 19—2
292 Battle of Kunersdorf. [1759
could not have led the army worse if he had been di-unk ; that he had
committed every blunder conceivable in war, and that the story of his
campaign deserved to be printed as a warning example for all the
generals of posterity. He then transferred the chief command of the
army at Ziillichau to Lieutenant-General von Wedell, promoting him
over the heads of four older Lieutenant-Generals, and impressing upon
these officers that WedelFs position in the army at Ziillichau was to be
that of a " dictator in Roman times."
But Wedell, too, failed to fulfil the hopes set on him by the King of
Prussia. On July 23 he attacked the 40,000 Russians with his 27,000
men near the village of Kay, and was completely beaten. One-fourth of
the Prussian army lay dead on the field of battle ; the implacable King,
roused to fury by the disaster, scolded his brave soldiers as a set of
rascals. At the head of a division, he quitted the camp at Schmottseifeh
where he had faced Daun entrenched at Marklissa, and had sought an
opportunity of battle with passionate impatience. Prince Henry stayed
behind at Schmottseifen as Commander-in-chief.
There was one distinct point of difference between the situation of
1759 and that of the previous year, when the King had also advanced
against Daun in Lusatia with a corps of Dohna's army. Daun, who lay
at Lauban, had once more sent Laudon ahead to try to get into touch
with the Russians ; but this time with 18,000 instead of 8000 men. At
Priebus Hadik joined forces with Laudon at the head of a second corps
of 17,000 men. Frederick himself described as "frightful and cruel"
the marches which his troops had to make, to cut ofF the progress of
the two Austrian corps to Frankfort on the Oder, whither Soltikoff had
proceeded. For six nights the King never slept. As a matter of fact,
Hadik's corps was pushed away from the Russians and obliged to
move in the direction of Spremberg; but in this position, from a
dangerous proximity, it threatened Berlin, which Hadik had entered in
1757. Above all, Laudon emerged unchallenged, and effected a junction
with the Russians at Kunersdorf, which is situated on the Oder quite
close to Frankfort. At that time Daun was between Rothenburg
and Priebus, near to the south-eastern frontier of the Mark Branden-
burg, and not very far from Schiedlow on the Oder, where Soltikoff had
promised to cross the river and join hands with his Austrian- ally. Such
was the critical condition of things, when Frederick attacked the Russians
at Kunersdorf on August 12. He had 43,000 men, the Russians and
Austrians 53,000 regulars, and 15,000 Cossacks and Croatians. Although
these irregular forces played only an insignificant part in the action,
the numerical superiority of the Russians and Austrians was very
considerable — otherwise than at Zomdorf. The King of Prussia was
confronted by a general of the first rank, in the person of Laudon.
Moreover, the Russian position was once more incomparable.
The King of Prussia's attempt to storm this position resulted in one
1759] Despondency of Frederick. 293
of the most horrible massacres recorded in history. Of 43,000 Prussians
19,000 lay dead or wounded on the field, that is to say, not much less than
half. But the hills, swamps, and ravines which Soltikoff and Laudon
defended could not be forced by the Prussians. Finally, a cavalry charge
undertaken at the right moment by Laudon routed the Prussian army,
already tired to death after a fifteen hours' exposure to the scorching heat
of the sun. Frederick's heroic example could not avert the catastrophe.
"The King," wrote a Westphalian private after the battle to his people
at home, ^' was always at the front crying, 'Boys, don't desert me'; and
at last he took a flag from Prince Henry's regiment and said, ' Wlioever
is a brave soldier, let him follow me ! ' " Two horses were shot under
Frederick. He would have met his death from a bullet, if it had not
flattened and glanced off^ the gold snufF-box in his pocket. He was one
of the last to leave the battle-field. With eyes fixed, and half-stunned,
he exclaimed : " Cannot some damned bullet hit me ? " Close behind him
CossiEicks galloped in pursuit. He believed that he was doomed; but
the gallantry of his life-guardsmen just succeeded in rescuing him ; and
he took up his headquarters in the castle of Reitwein on the opposite
bank of the Oder. Here he transferred his command to Lieutenant-
General von Finck, "because I am attacked by serious illness," so
runs the order. In his instructions to the new Commander-in-chief,
Frederick says : " General von Finck's commission is a heavy one. The
unfortunate army which I give over to him is no longer in a condition
to defeat the Russians. Hadik wiU hasten on to Berlin, perhaps Laudon
also. If General Finck overtakes them, he will have the Russians in his
rear ; if he stays on the Oder, Hadik will be upon him on this side of
the river." The King proceeds to mention that he has nominated Princd
Henry Generalissimo and that the army is to swear fealty to the young
heir to the ;throne. Prince Frederick William ; and then he concludes :
" If there had been any resource remaining, I should have held out."
What all this signified is explained in a letter of the same date to his
Foreign Minister von Finkenstein, which runs : " It is a cruel blow,
and I cannot survive it. The consequences of the affair are worse than
the affair itself. I have no resources left, and, to speak the truth,
I consider all is lost. I shall not outlive the ruin of my fatherland.
Adieu for ever ! " Thus it would seem that the King thought that the
hoiu" had come at last to commit the act which had been in his mind
more or less for over two years; believing that Soltikoff and Daun
would, at least approximately, turn the victory of Kunersdorf to account
with the energy which he was himself accustomed to display in the
waging of war. But the Russian and Austrian generals showed them-
selves incapable of any such resolute action; and, perceiving this not
very long after his defeat, Frederick pulled himself together with his
usual elasticity, and carried on the struggle.
StiU, in his momentary condition of weakness he could not prevent
294 Opening of the campaign of 1760. [i769-60
Dresden from falling into the hands of the Austrians. This was a heavy
loss, not only from a military but from a political point of view. For at
that time England and Prussia were meditating diplomatic steps towards
a general peace. Frederick had mastered his despair sufficiently to hope
that he might claim Saxony when terms of peace were negotiated. His
desire to become possessed of the electorate was so ardent, that, at a
pinch, he would have given East Prussia for it to the Russians and
his Rhenish possessions to the French. Hence, after reorganising his
forces as best he could, Frederick with the utmost energy prosecuted
operations against Daun, who was in any case to be compelled to
evacuate Dresden and take up winter-quarters in Bohemia. But this
rash method of conducting a campaign brought a further terrible mis-
fortune upon the Prussians. Finck, who had been ordered to Daun's
rear with 16,000 men, was cut oflF at Maxen, and his whole corps captured
(November 21).
During the unlucky campaign of 1759, the King of Prussia's provinces
and the electorate of Saxony had been obliged to support the Russians
and Austrians. After the battle of Kunersdorf the Swedes, too, were
a^in encamped in western Pomerania and the Uckermark, and the
troops of the Empire temporarily in Saxony. Despite the great weaken-
ing of his resources, Frederick brought together for the campaign of
1760 about 100,000 men — that is, 50,000 fewer combatants than in 1757
and 1758, but still an astounding result of organisation, even in the
opinion of his enemies. They had placed in the field 223,000 combatants
as against his 100,000. Their first strategical object was Silesia, the
province which had suffered least, so that from it the King drew his chief
supplies of money and recruits.
The Silesian campaign of 1760 began with a severe reverse for the
Prussian troops. On June 23 General Fouque's corps of 11,000 men,
which guarded the passes into Silesia near Landshut, was attacked by
vastly superior numbers, and, after heroic resistance, entirely annihilated.
On July 26, the important Silesian fortress of Glatz capitulated, after a
siege by Laudon of only fifteen days. In the heart of Silesia, at Liegnitz,
gathered 90,000 Austrians, while on the opposite bank of the Oder
50,000 Russians advanced as far as Breslau. Soltikoff, at Auras,
ordered bridges to be thrown across the Oder, and a Russian corps of
20,000 men passed the river. Its commander, Chemuisheff, had orders
to pin down Prince Henry, who covered Breslau; in the meantime
the 90,000 Austrians were to attack the King of Prussia who, with
80,000 men, was stationed at Liegnitz. On August 15 this attack
took place. Laudon's corps succeeded in surprising Frederick. But
neither did the much-tried King's wonderful presence of mind forsake
him, nor did the Prussian infantry fail to give proof of that mobility
which had already triumphed so repeatedly on the battle-field. This
time, Frederick's adversaries had not the advantage of a strong defensive
i76o] Battle of Uegnitz. 295
position, but attacked the Prussians on the march, as the French had
been attacked at Rossbach. The Austrians were beaten and lost 4000
prisoners and 83 cannon. After the many reverses sustained by the
Prussian army, the moral significance for the King of the victory at
Ldegnitz could not be overestimated. Since Zomdorf he had often
criticised with bitter severity the deterioration of his infantry. It was
a fact that the ranks of the Prussian army were fiUed with young
inexperienced soldiers. They had been thinned by the loss, at Maxen, of
about eighteen battalions, and thirty-five squadrons. The deficiency of
officers had been even more imperfectly supplied than that of men. The
war had played havoc with the Prussian nobility to such a degree, that
boys of fifteen and even fourteen were taken from the schools to be
trained as cadets, and, much to the King's disgust, to serve as officers.
Frederick's free criticism of his troops, sometimes just, but much oftener
exaggerated and unfair, had become known in the enemy's camp ; and,
after a whole Prussian corps had surrendered their arms at Maxen, without
firing a shot, Europe thought that the beginning of the moral break-up
of Frederick's army was in sight. But the day of Liegnitz put an end to
all such misapprehensions. The troops of Frederick the Great remained,
first and last, superior in quality to the Austrians and Russians. The
privates of the Prussian army consisted of mercenaries, enlisted as
voluntary recruits or pressed, partly natives, partly foreigners, with the
addition of rude peasant serfs who had been levied by conscription ; and
these were kept together by the merciless application of the stick. But,
besides these, there was a third and nobler element among the Prussian
soldiery. After the battle of Liegnitz, Frederick spoke to a veteran of
the Anhalt regiment, and praised the behavioiu: of the troops. The
veteran replied : " What else could we do ? We are fighting for you,
for our religion, and our fatherland." Tears came into the King's
eyes, and afterwards, when he narrated the incident, he was again
overcome with emotion. In accordance with these ideals, which animated
a section of Frederick's soldiers, the army which, fifty years after the
Seven Years' War, lay ingloriously crushed at Napoleon's feet, was
reorganised, and, by blending modem ideas with Friderician traditions,
has since marched from victory to victory. To the battle of Liegnitz
was due a new feeling of personal trust between the King and his
officers, amongst whom had arisen a rather dangerous spirit of oppo-
sition, encouraged by Prince Henry. But from a material point of view
the victory did very little to improve Prussian affairs. The Austrians
and Russians remained in Silesia, and drained the resources of that
province, which the war had hitherto but slightly affected. A second
Russian corps and the Swedes ravaged Pomerania, The whole of Saxony
was occupied by Austrian and Imperial troops, together with the adjacent
old Prussian territory of Halle, a wealthy district, where large contribu-
tions were raised. A serious invasion of the Mark Brandenburg followed
296 Berlin occupied.-^The Austrians evacuate Saxony. [i760
in the autumn. The army of :the Empire advanced as far as Treuen-
brietzen, and the Swedes had reached the Uckermark, The Russian
main army occupied the Neumark, 40,000 Russians and Austrians
entering the undefended city of Berlin. Here a contribution of two
million thalers was raised — a sum, the significance of which for Prussia
at that time will be clear when it is realised that Frederick was drawing
from England not more than four and a half million thalers (=^670,000)
in yearly subsidies, and that without this sum he could not have carried
on his campaigns. Berlin was in the hands of the Austrians and
Russians from October 9 to 13, when the advance of the King from
Silesia set it free, though he was forced to allow the invaders of his
capital to retreat unmolested.
Next, he was obliged to march into Saxony, where Daun had taken
up a position on the Siptitzer hills near Torgau, from which the
Austrians disputed his possession of the electorate. The Siptitzer
hills were regarded as impregnable, and on November 3 Daun accepted
a battle. He had 50,000 combatants, Frederick 44,000. The King of
Prussia's plan of battle was the boldest that he had ever conceived. The
Prussian army fought in two sections, which, separated by a wide interval,
were out of touch with each other. The one half, personally commanded
by the King, attacked Daim's front; the other, under General von
Ziethen, assaulted his rear. During the whole combat the King fear-
lessly faced the enemy's fire. His pages and the officers of his suite
were for the most part wounded, and three horses were shot under him.
A shell struck him on the chest. He fell swooning, but soon recovered
himself : " Ce rCest rien^ he said, and continued to hold the command.
The dislocation of Frederick's troops remained unpunished , because
the Austrians, according to their traditions, would not depart from the
defensive. They would finally have been beaten ; indeed, had they been
attacked simultaneously in front and rear, they must have been annihi-
lated, had but Ziethen brought as much energy to bear on the combat ,
as did the King. The latter, however, had no generals at his command
able to execute an independent commission with the highest degree
of strategical eiFectiveness. The Austrians, feeling themselves some-
what hard pressed in their rear, maintained sufficient order to be able
to retreat under cover of the darkness. Crossing the Elbe, to the
right of their position, they evacuated the whole of Saxony, except
Dresden. Owing to linear tactics (implying the fighting of infantry
in close battle-array) nearly all the battles of the Seven Years' War
were attended by great loss of life, and Torgau cost the Prussian
army more than thirty-three and a third per cent, of their numbers.
The grumbling of his troops had already reached the King's ears.
Already after the battle of Kunersdorf he had written that he stood
more in fear of his own soldiers than of the enemy ; he now forbade his
adjutants, under threats of stringent punishment, to make known the
i76i] Campaign of 1761. Prussian losses. 297
real figures of the Torgau losses. The Austrians had lost somewhat
less than the Prussians, but among their losses were 7000 prisoners ;
30 standards and 46 guns were also left behind by Daun in the enemy's
hands. The profound moral depression which Torgau and Liegnitz had
produced in the Austrian camp in some measure compensated Frederick
for the severe material losses of the campaign. He still had money,
though, no doubt, he resorted to means of filling his war chests which
affected injuriously the well-being of his subjects. The coinage was more
unscrupulously debased. For example, when the gold (in which form
British subsidies were paid) came to Berlin, there was added to it so
strong an alloy of copper that one million was converted into two — a
depreciation of value like that efiected under Septimius Severus at the
beginning of the iron age of the Roman Empire.
But even such extreme and desperate measures failed any longer to
sustain the King of Prussia; in the campaign of 1761 his powers deserted
him. Laudon, who commanded an Austrian army in Silesia, accomplished
a junction -with the Russians at Liegnitz, the scene of his former defeat.
Frederick, who was commanding in person in Silesia, and had tried in
vain to prevent the juncture of Laudon with the Russians, could for the
moment only think of acting on the defensive. He had 55,000 men, his
opponent at least twice as many. On August 20 the King of Prussia
occupied the entrenched position of Bunzelwitz. Laudon and Field-
Marshal Buturlin, who had succeeded SoltikofF in command of the
Russian army, dared not attack the trenches of Bunzelwitz, but on
October 16 Laudon conquered Schweidnitz in addition to Glatz, which
had been in Austrian hands since the last campaign. This new acquisition
made it possible for the Austrians to take up their winter-quarters in
Silesia. In Saxony also the King's supplies for the most part came to a
stop. In November Field-Marshal Daun and the Imperial army had
dislodged Prince Henry from the extensive territory west of Freiberg on
the Mulde. Freiberg, Chemnitz, Zeitz, Naumburg on the Saale, and
many other productive parts of the electorate now supplied the Austrians,
instead of, as hitherto, the Prussians, with recruits, provisions and money.
While the Austrians were able to take up their winter-quarters for
the first time in Silesia and western Saxony, the Russians were able to
do the same in Pomerania. On December 16 Kolberg capitulated to
a Russian corps which had been detached for Pomerania. Thus the
Russians had now, in the heart of Frederick's monarchy, a harbour which
kept their fleet in communication with Russia and with their great
magazine at PiUau, where were hoarded the supplies which flowed in
from the resources of East Prussia to strengthen the Russian sinews
of war. Even before Kolberg had fallen, the King of Prussia wrote
to d'Argens • " Every bundle of straw, every transport of recruits, every
consignment of money, all that reaches me, is, or becomes a favour on
the part of my enemies, or a proof of their negligence, for they could, as
298 Frederick's hopeless situation-Death of Elizabeth. [i76i-2
a matter of fact, take everything. Here in Silesia, every fortress stands
at the disposal of the enemy. Stettin, Ciistrin, and Berlin itself are open
to the Russians to deal with at their pleasure. In Saxony, Daun's first
move, so to speak, throws my brother back over the Elbe.... If fortune
continues to treat me so mercilessly I shall undoubtedly succumb. Only
she can deliver me from my present situation ! "
Frederick the Great's most trustworthy political friend, William
Pitt, had, six months before this, begun to doubt the King of Prussia's
ability to hold out, and advised him, as Voltaire and Prince Henry
had formerly done, to purchase peace by cession of territory. Pitt now
quitted the British Cabinet. Bute's Ministry, disapproving the eagerness
for war which had characterised Pitt's policy, based its own programme
on the restoration of universal peace ; and Bute was of opinion that it
was the King of Prussia's duty to contribute to the ending of the
European war by some sacrifice of territory to his enemies. The King
was to be forced to do this by the withdrawal of his British subsidies.
Frederick believed that, in the present chaos of his financial afiairs, he
would be absolutely unable to dispense with English money. That
Maria Theresa was also in desperate financial straits, and obliged to
undertake a considerable reduction of her army in the middle of the
war, made no essential diflerence, from Frederick's point of view, in his
own hopeless position. AH Europe now called upon him to renounce the
idea that he could preserve the integrity of the Prussian State. He had
not the means for sustaining himself in the coming campaign. Probably,
if he had been ready to cede even the county of Glatz, he would have been
granted a peace. But he determined that not a village imder his rule
should be lost to the State ; rather would he take his own life. If, he
wrote to d'Argens, he could not use Caesar's Commentaries as his guide,
he intended to follow Cato.
Among Frederick's calculations in August, 1756, when he had
regarded the general situation as propitious to his venturing on an
invasion of Saxony, had been the surmise that the days of the Empress
Elizabeth were numbered. But the Tsarina lived five years and a half
longer than Frederick, and with him every European diplomatist, had
thought probable. Not till January 5, 1762 (N.S.), did Peter the Great's
daughter die, of a haemorrhage, in the fifty-third year of her age. This
event brought about an immediate and complete revulsion in the political
state of the world. On May 5, 1762, Elizabeth's nephew and successor,
Peter III, who was not of quite sound intellect, concluded a peace with
the King of Prussia, with whom his aunt had, on public grounds,
been irreconcilably at war. East Prussia and eastern Pomerania were
evacuated by the Russians, so that the resources of those districts
could be employed for the immediately imminent campaign against the
Austrians. Sweden, following Russia's example, also made peace with
the King of Prussia. The agreement was signed on May 22. The great
1762] Russo-Prussianalliance. Fontainebleau Preliminaries. 299
diplomatic and military change, which had come so unexpectedly, was
accomplished with most extraordinary speed. On Jime 16 the new Tsar
entered into an offensive alliance with Frederick against Austria, and
ordered that 20,000 Russians should reinforce the Prussian army in
Silesia. By June 30 the Russian reinforcement under General Chemui-
sheflp luid already crossed the Oder, and formed a junction with the forces
of Frederick the Great at Auras. Hereupon, Daun was beaten at
Burkersdorf on July 21, and driven back from Schweidnitz, which he
was covering. At Burkersdorf Frederick was once more able to demon-
strate that, although deprived of English subsidies, he was able to put
into the field an army capable of manoeuvring in the best style. Daun
made yet one more attempt to save the besieged fortress of Schweidnitz.
His advance led to the combat of Reichenbach on August 16. The
Austrian outflanking movement was frustrated by the vigilance of
Frederick, who, mounted on his roan Caesar, came up at a quick gallop
at the head of a regiment of Brown Hussars, to take part in the fight.
Schweidnitz capitulated on October 9. On the 29th of the same
month. Prince Henry, who was commanding on the subsidiary theatre of
war in Saxony, at Freiberg defeated with an army of 24,000 men an
equal number of Austrians, supported by 15,000 troops of the army of
the Empire. The battle of Freiberg is the only great action of the Seven
Years' War in which the Prussian troops were victorious when not under
the personal command of Frederick. Unsatisfactory as were the relations
between the two brothers, Frederick never acted with more royal wisdom
than when he frankly expressed to himself and others his sense of Prince
Henry's great services to the State. " He is the single Prussian general,"
said the King, " who has committed no blunder."
Meanwhile, a rupture had taken place in the Prussian alliance with
Russia, caused by the assassination of Peter III. But, though the new
Russian sovereign, Catharine II, recalled the reinforcements under Chernui-
shefl', she did not reenter the coalition against the King of Prussia. The
Austrians, without the aid of the Russians, and with only the Imperial
troops to help them, could not crush the Prussian army. To Maria
Theresa's distress, this had been evident enough at Freiberg, where the
Prussians had lost only 1045 men in aU, whereas the Austrians had lost
3385 in prisoners alone, not counting those of the Imperial troops that
had been made prisoners. The French also saw clearly that, after the
withdrawal of Russia from the coalition, there was no hope of regaining
Silesia for the Austrians, and so securing the Netherlands for themselves.
On November 3 the French diplomatists signed at Fontainebleau the
preliminaries of a peace with England, which imposed on France enormous
cessions in North America and India, without giving her any compensa-
tion in Europe. Prussia and France had fought against each other at
Rossbach, although war had never been formally declared between them.
Thus, no peace was signed now between Louis XV and Frederick, though
300 Peace of Huhertusburg. [ires
hostilities ceased de facto. The French evacuated the Rhenish possessions
of the King of Prussia, which they had occupied — Cleves, Gelders, and
Mors.
On February 15, 1763, Austria and Saxony likewise concluded a
peace with Prussia at Huhertusburg, a castle used as a shooting-lodge by
the Elector of Saxony. King Frederick, to the last, clung with passionate
longing to the idea of acquiring Saxony. Even when.negotiating terms
of peace with Russia, he was willing to give up East Prussia to the Tsar,
Peter III, in exchange for the transference of the electorate of Saxony to
the House of Brandenburg. But, in view of the issue of the War, there
could be no question of any such transaction. The King was obliged to
be content with the return of Glatz by the Austrians, who had held it
for two years and a half. The basis on which peace was concluded was
the status quo ante helium.
Frederick, though only fifty-one years of age, returned to his capital
an old man ; from that time forward the Berliners dubbed him " Old
Fi'itz." There was not much humour for hero-worship among those with
whom Frederick came in personal contact; but all Europe, friend and
foe alike, were at one in the conviction that a greater Prince had never
sat on a throne. For all that, the King had certainly failed in achieving
the political object of the war. Prussia remained smaU, uncultured, and
broken up. The world found it hard to believe that so puny a " Great
Power " could have any future before it.
301
CHAPTER X.
RUSSIA UNDER ANNE AND ELIZABETH.
The government of Anne (whose accession has been described in
a previous volume), prudent, beneficial, and even glorious, as it proved
to be, was undoubtedly severe, and became at last universally unpopular.
The causes of this unpopularity are to be sought in the character of
the Empress and the peculiar circumstances under which she ascended
the throne. Anna Ivanovna was in her seven and thirtieth year when,
in 1730, she came to Russia. Her natural parts, if not brilliant, were
at least sound ; but a worse than indifferent education, and a life-long
series of petty vexations and humiliations had dwarfed her intelligence
and soured her disposition. Her past had not been happy, and
she was very uneasy about the future. Her earliest experience of the
Russian nobility had been anything but agreeable. They had showed
a dangerous disposition to limit, or, at any rate, to define her prerogatives.
It was only the energetic intervention of the Guards that had saved the
monarchy. Suspicious and resentful, Anne felt that she could never
trust the Russian genti-y with power. She felt that she must surround
her throne with persons entirely devoted to her interests, and these
persons, from the nature of the case, could only be foreigners — Germans,
Livonians, Courlanders. The chief of these was the favourite Ernst
Johann BUhren, or Biren, the grandson of a groom who had risen in
the service of Duke Jakob III of Courland. Biren had supplanted
Count Peter Bestuzheff in the good graces of Anne while she was still
only Duchess of Courland. Handsome and insinuating, with sense
enough to conceal his ignorance and roughness beneath a bluff bonhomie,
his influence over his mistress was paramount and permanent. On the
accession of the new Empress, honours and riches were heaped upon
him. At her coronation (May 19, 1730) he was made Grand Chamberlain
and a Count of the Empire. During the latter years of the reign,
Biren's power and riches increased enormously. His apartments in
the palace adjoined those of the Empress ; his liveries, furniture, and
equipages were scarcely inferior to her own. Half the bribes intended for
the Russian Court passed into his coffers. He had estates in Livonia,
302 Russia dominated by Germans. [1732-9
Courland, Siberia, and the Ukraine. A special department of State
looked after his brood mares and stallions. His riding-school was one
of the sights of the Russian capital. The magnificence of his plate
astonished the French ambassador, and the diamonds of his Duchess
(a Fraulein von Treiden) were the envy of princes. The climax of this
wondrous elevation was reached when, in the course of 1737, the Estates
of Courland, under considerable pressure, elected Ernst Johann their
reigning Duke. Henceforth his Most Serene Highness received all the
honours due to sovereigns and, together with his consort, took his seat
at the imperial table.
Another Livonian, Carl Gustaf Lowenwolde, was created a Count and
made Grand Marshal of her Majesty's household; while his brother,
Reinhold, a few months later, was (September 30) nominated Colonel of
the newly raised regiment of foot-guards, consisting of 2000 gentlemen,
mostly Livonians, henceforth known as the Ismailovski regiment, from
Ismailovo, the Emppess' favourite summer residence near Moscow. The
all-important post of Commander-in-chief was (in 1732) bestowed upon
yet another foreigner, the great engineer and contractor of the famous
Ladoga canal, Burkhard Christoph von Miinnich, who had entered the
service of Peter the Great in 1721 and became, in rapid succession. War
Minister, Field-Marshal, a Count, and Governor of St Petersburg.
Foreign affairs remained in the capable hands of a fifth German, Count
Osterman, whom everyone now regarded as indispensable.
Thus the principle of Anne's government was a reversal of the
patriotic golden rule of Peter the Great : natives first, aliens afterwards.
For the first time in her history, Russia was now dominated by foreigners.
It must be admitted that, to some extent at least, the Russians themselves
were to blame for this unnatural state of things. No sooner had the
controlling hand of Peter been withdrawn than his pupils began to quarrel
among themselves, and. their mutual jealousies and hatreds had ended in
the extei:mination of the Russian party. Menshikoff had ruined Tolstoi,
the Dolgorukis and the Galitsins had ruined Menshikoff, Yaguzhinski
had destroyed the Dolgorukis and the Galitsins, and now Yaguzhinski
himself, the sole survivor of the little band of capable native statesmen
whom Peter the Great had left behind him, was honovu-ably exiled by
being accredited as Russian ambassador to Berlin, to prevent him from
interfering with Osterman. The cruel persecution of the Dolgorukis and
the Galitsins in 1782, and again in 1738-9, carried on chiefly to allay
Biren's craven fears of piu:ely imaginary conspiracies, exasperated the
Russian gentry still more against the German tyranny; but it is only just
to add that the unpopularity of Anne's rule was due quite as much to
its rigorous enforcement of order and discipline as to its cruel unfairness
to the great Boyar families. The policy of the two preceding reigns had
been purposely and consistently easy-going ; and, although such laxity
had been injurious to the State in many ways, it had made Catharine I
1732-3] Osterman and the Austro-Bussian alliance. 303
and Peter II extremely popular. Under Anne things were very different.
The reins of government that had hung so slackly before were now
drawn tight, and the nation winced beneath the change. The overdue
contributions from the small proprietors and peasantry were exacted to
the last copeck; the soldier}' were again compelled to labour in many
arduous public works; both the army and the navy were thoroughly over-
hauled and placed once more on an effective war footing; every symptom
of insubordination was sternly suppressed; everything like carelessness
was severely punished. It was an additional grievance that the Court
had moved to St Petersburg, where the Russian magnates, far away from
their estates, found life excessively costly and inconvenient.
Anne, it must also be added, for all her vindictiveness towards
individuals, seems really to have endeavoured to do her duty towards
her subjects in the mass. She was, as a rule at any rate, prudent,
careful, and conscientious. She had a natural turn for business; loved
order and method; took some pains to get at the truth of matters;
and was always ready to consult people more experienced in affairs
than herself, notably Osterman and Munnich, both of them men of
extraordinary talent, who — even the patriots could not deny this^
devoted all their energy to promote the honour and glory of their
adopted country. At the very beginning of the reign, shortly after the
restoration of the Administrative Senate, Osterman persuaded Anne to
establish an inner Council, or Cabinet, of three persons only (the Grand
Chancellor, Count Golovkin, Prince Alexis Cherkaski, both of them
nonentities, and Osterman himself), which was presided over by the
Empress and acted as the sole intermediary between her Majesty and
all the Departments of State. Established ostensibly for the prompter
despatch of business, it enabled Osterman, at the same time, to shake off
troublesome rivals, and certainly gave him a free hand in his own special
Department of Foreign Affairs, which he thoroughly understood.
The pivot of Osterman's political "system" was the Austrian alliance,
of which he was the original promoter and the most devoted champion.
France, on the other hand, he regarded with ineradicable suspicion. In
1732 he persuaded the Cabinet to reject the offer of an alliance made by
Louis XV, through Magnan, his charge d'affaires at St Petersburg, on con-
dition that Russia supported the candidature of the French King's father-
in-law, Stanislaus Leszczynski, for the Polish throne on the next vacancy.
It would be far better, Osterman urged on this occasion, to bring about a
league between the three Black Eagles to protect the White Eagle. When,
after the death of Augustus II, Stanislaus was actually elected King of
Poland, Osterman, with the aid of Austria, drove him out and procured
the election of Augustus III. He also accelerated the pace of the
negotiations which ultimately concluded the War of the Polish Succession,
by despatching Peter Lacy at the head of 20,000 men to unite with the
Imperial forces on the banks of the Neckar — the first appearance of
304 Beginning of the Russo- Turkish War. [i733-9
a Muscovite army in central Europe. The French Court endeavoured
to counter this blow by promoting a rupture between Russia and the
Porte. There were many grounds for a quarrel between the two Powers —
such as the perennial dispute about the ownership of the Kabardine
district and the territories of the Kuban Tartars ; the repeated violation
of undisputed Russian territory by Tartar hordes ; and, finally, the Polish
question, in which Turkey was deeply interested. The French ambassador
at the Porte, Marquis de Villeneuve, used every efiFort to induce the
Sultan to declare war against the Russian Empress during the War of
the Polish Succession. Had the Porte been able to attack Russia in
1733, that Power would have been placed in a very critical position.
Fortunately, the efifects of Villeneuve's intrigues were balanced by the
crushing defeats inflicted upon the Turks at this very time by Kuli
Khan in the interminable Persian War. Till the Persian difficulty had
been disposed of, the Turk was inclined to leave Russia alone ; but, in
the meantime, the Court of St Petersburg, now triumphant in Poland,
was tempted to reopen the Eastern question on its own account. Ivan
Neplyneff, the exceedingly well-informed Russian ambeissador at the
Porte, began to urge his Government "to fall upon these barbarians'"
while they were still sufiering from the effects of their reverses, and
represented the whole Ottoman empire as tottering to its fall. Towards
the end of 1735 the arguments of Neplynefi^ prevailed. Osterman coun-
selled immediate war, and, after the cooperation of Austria had been
secured, the Empress was won over to his opinion. A definitive treaty
with Kuli Khan, in the vain hope of whose active assistance the Russian
troops evacuated Peter the Great's Persian conquests, Derbend, Baku,
and Svyesti Krest, was the first step. Circumstances were favourable,
and everything promised success. The treasury was full, the army in an
excellent condition, no interference was to be anticipated from any
foreign Power. Accordingly, a formal declaration of war, drawn up by
the Russian Vice-Chancellor, was despatched to the Grand Vizier ; and,
on July 23, 1735, Miinnich received orders to proceed at once from the
Vistula to the Don.
The Turkish War of 1736-9 marks the beginning of that
systematic struggle on the part of Russia to recover her natural and
legitimate southern boundaries, which was to last throughout the
eighteenth century, finally succeeding after the expenditure of millions
of lives and an incalculable quantity of treasure. The possession of the
shores of the Euxine and the circumjacent tracts was as necessary to
the complete and normal development of the Russian Empire as was
the possession of the recently acquired shores of the Baltic. Again,
these regions, infested as they were by the innumerable predatory tribes
dependent on the Porte, were a standing danger to the Russian Govern-
ment. Moreover, even as late as the middle of the eighteenth century,
Turkey had the entire control of the five great rivers— rthe Dniester, the
1731-8] The first Crimean campaign. 305
Bug, the Dnieper, the Don, and the Kuban — that drain southern Russia
and, consequently, could control, and even suspend at will, no inconsider-
able portion of her neighbour's commerce. The most powerful vassal of
the Sultan in these parts was the Khan of the Crimea, who, from hij
capital at Bagchaserai, ruled over all the scattered Tartar hordes from
the Dnieper to the Don. The Crimea at this time was very rich. The
Steppes poured the inexhaustible wealth of their flocks and herds into
it, and the trade between the peninsula and Turkey was enormous.
Koslofij the chief port on its western side, exported 200,000 head of cattle
and an incalculable quantity of grain to Stambul every year, while the
still more prosperous Kaffa on the east coast was, perhaps, the largest
slave-mart in the world. Hitherto the Crimea had been generally
regarded as impregnable. On the land side the lines of Perekop, a
deep trench, five-and-twenty fathoms broad, defended by an earthen
wall eight fathoms high, and nearly five English miles long, protected
the narrow isthmus which united the peninsula to the mainland, while
the fortress of Azoff, at the head of the sea of the same name, com-
manded the Delta of the Don, and was thought a sufficient defence
against any attack from the north-east. In order to keep out the
Tartars from Central Russia, and, at the same time, to form a base for
future operations against them, Peter the Great had conceived the
gigantic project of connecting the rivers Dnieper and Donetz by a chain
of fortifications a hundred leagues in length, to which he proposed to
give the name of the lines of the Ukraine. The work began in 1731,
•six years after the Emperor's death, and, completed in 1738, only
partially fulfilled its double purpose. The ground covered was too
extensive to be adequately guarded. The forts were placed so far apart
that the Tartars were able to pass and repass the lines continually,
despite all the efforts of the Russians. Nevertheless, this system of
fortification was to prove an invaluable point Wappui for armies operating
against the Turks; and here, in the early autumn of 1735, Marshal
Miinnich arrived for the ptu^ose of collecting his forces.
The plan of campaign, as finally arranged by Miinnich with his
colleague and fellow Marshal Peter Lacy, was as follows. The enemy was
to be attacked from all sides simultaneously, Miiiinich invading the Crimea
while Lacy besieged Azoff: So soon as Miinnich had stormed the lines
of Perekop, he was to detach 12,000 against the fortress of Kinburn on
Dnieper to prevent the Budjak Tartars from crossing that river by way
of Ochakoff^, whilst Lacy, after capturing Azoff', was to hasten to the
support of Miinnich's army. On April 20, 1736, Miinnich began his
march across the steppes to Perekop. His army, including the Cossacks,
numbered 57,000 men. For 330 miles his way lay through a wilder-
ness. The first brush with the Tartars, at Chernaya Dolina, was so easily
repulsed that for the rest of the campaign these nomads were treated as a
negligible quantity. So long as the army encoimtered them in square
0, M. B, VI. CH. X. 20
306 The first Crimean campaign. [i736-7
formation, with the field artillery at the corners and in the centre, and
the Cossacks inside guarding the baggage with their long lances, the
hordes were found to be comparatively harmless. The Russian progress
was very slow, however, owing to the enormous amount of its impedi-
menta. There was not a single town in the whole region ; so that every
necessary, even to firewood and water, had to be provided beforehand.
Incredible as it may sound, we are assured by a reliable eye-witness that
Mlinnich never entered upon a campaign without dragging at least
80,000 wagons after him.
On May 15, Miinnich arrived at the lines of Perekop. On the evening
of May 19 its central fortress, Or-Kapi, feebly defended by Janizaries
and other Turkish regulars, was captui-ed by assault, and the wealthy
town of Perekop behind it was abandoned to pillage. Prom Perekop
the Russians, who now began to suffer severely from dysentery and other
diseases, advanced upon KosloflF, which was abandoned by the enemy on
their approach (June 5). On the 17th the Crimean capital, Bagchaserai,
was captured by the Cossacks, after a sharp fight which cost them 300
men. Miinnich's further progress was arrested by a dangerous mutiny
in his own army, which compelled him to return first to Perekop
and thence to the lines of the Ukraine. Lacy, meanwhile, had been
equally successful before Azoff, though there he had encountered a far
stouter resistance than his brother Marshal had met with anywhere in
the Crimea. The garrison consisted of picked men ; and the Seraskier
inflicted so much damage upon the besiegers that, after a seven weeks'
siege, they allowed him and his garrison to march out with all the honours
of war (June 30). Then, on hearing that Miinnich had already quitted
the Crimea for the Ukraine, Lacy followed his example.
The campaign of 1736 had been very costly to the Russians. Miinnich
alone had lost no fewer than 30,000 men out of a total of 57,000, and
of these not more than 2000 had fallen in action. At Court, people
naturally began to ask what was the use of a campaign in which half
the army had been thrown away for next to nothing. Nevertheless,
dissatisfied as she was with Miinnich, the Empress could not aiford to
lose him; and, glad as the Russian Ministers would have been to
see an honourable end put to the war (especially in view of the con-
sistent ill-success of their Austrian ally on the Danube), they were, to
quote the English envoy at St Petersburg, Claudius Rondeau, " ashamed ,
to own it after all the great things they had proposed to do." Their
hopes, too, were revived by the assurances of the new Russian resident
at Stambul, Vishnyakoff, that everything in Turkey was in the utmost
confusion, and that the slightest disaster would bring the crumbling
edifice to the ground.
At the end of April, 1737, Miinnich took the field for the second
time. His army now consisted of 70,000 men, and he was supported by
two officers of great ability, General James Francis Keith, who had
1737-9] Campaigns of 1737 and 1738. 307
entered the Russian service as a Major-General in 1728, and Alexander
Rumyantseff. Miinnich's objective was Ochakoff, the ancient Axiake,
situated at the confluence of the Dnieper and Bug. It was by far the
most considerable place in these parts, and was defended by 20,000 of
the best troops in Turkey under the leadership of the valiant Seraskier
Tiagya. On June 29, the Russians crossed the Bug, and, after forming
into three huge squares, followed the course of the river till they reached
the fortress (July 10). The failure of the field artillery to arrive at the
set time at first embarrassed Miinnich seriously ; but the gallant conduct
of Keith (whom the grateful Empress raised to the rank of Lieutenant-
General besides sending him a present of 10,000 roubles), together with
an impetuous dash of the Cossacks at the very moment when an explosion
of the largest powder magazine in the fortress had entombed 6000 of the
defenders, brought about the unexpected capture of the stronghold. The
carnage, however, was terrible. Seventeen thousand Turks perished on
the walls or in the ditches, while in the final assault the Russians lost
3000, the proportion of ofiicers killed being enormous. The remainder of
the campaign was comparatively uneventful. Towards the end of August
Miinnich brought back 46,000 men to the lines of the Ukraine. In the
late autumn the Tiurks made a determined effort to recapture Ochakoff, but
were repulsed from its walls with the loss of 20,000 killed and wounded.
A Peace Congress, which assembled (1737-8) at the little frontier
town of Nemiroff, having proved abortive, owing, chiefly, to the exorbi-
tance of the Russian demands, the war had to be resumed. The campaign
of 1738 was entirely barren. Miinnich had intended to invade the
Danubian Principalities ; but an outbreak of plague paralysed his opera-
tions. Indeed, in this campaign, he lost more men, horses and buUocks
than in any other. Lacy was, from similar causes, equally unfortunate
in the Crimea.
In the spring of 1738 the allies, weary of the war, accepted the
mediation of France. But the Turks, elated by their recent victories in
Hungary, and relieved from all pressure from the east (Kuli Khan, who
in 1736 had ascended the Persian throne under the name of Nadir Shah,
having, in the meantime, turned his arms against the Grqat Moghul),
refused acceptance of the very moderate terms now offered by the
Empress Anne, who wotdd have been content with Azoff and its district.
It was clear, therefore, to the Russian Cabinet that another campaign
must be fought. It was resolved to cooperate, this time, energetically
with the Austrians by invading Moldavia and proceeding to invest the
fortress of Chocim on Dniester. At the end of May, 1739, Miinnich
quitted the Ukraine with an army 65,000 strong. On August 27, he
defeated the Turks at the relatively bloodless battle of Stavuchanak,
the Russians losing only 70 men during an action which lasted twelve
hours, while the Turks left no more than 1000 dead on the field. The
next day, Miinnich advanced with all his siege artillery against Chocim,
CH. X. 20—2
308 Results of the Russo-Turkish War. [1736-9
which surrendered unconditionally at the first summons, the tidings of
Stavuchanak having created a panic in the garrison. On September 9
and 10 Miinnich crossed the Pruth. On the 19th he entered Jassy in
triumph, and reported that the principality of Moldavia had " solemnly
submitted to the Empress of all Russia." The same evening he received
from Prince Lobkowitz, the Austrian Commander-in-chief, "the miserable
and crushing " notification of the Peace of Belgrade, whereby Austria
sacrificed all the fruits of the Peace of Passarowitz. Disgusted as the
Russian Ministers were with the conduct of their ally, they knew it
was impossible to continue the struggle single-handed. Miinnich was
therefore recalled, and peace negotiations with the Porte were opened
simultaneously at Paris and Stambul trader the mediation of France.
Finally, by the Treaty of Constantinople, 1739, Russia was forced to
sacrifice all her conquests except Azofi' and its district, while Azoff itself
had to be dismantled. On this occasion the Porte was induced to change
the old title "Muscovy" into "Russia," but refused to concede the
imperial title to the Russian Empress.
Nevertheless, despite its seemingly meagre results, much more had
been gained by this five years' war than was, at first sight, apparent.
Miinnich had, at least, dissipated the illusion of Ottoman invincibility.
The Tartar hordes might still, for a time, continue to be a plague, but
they had ceased for ever to be a terror to Russia. Again, Russia's
signal and unexpected successes on the steppe had immensely increased
her prestige in Europe. The progress of the Russian arms had been
followed with intense interest both at London and Paris. Horace
Walpole, in acknowledging the receipt of Miinnich's map of the Crimea
from Rondeau in 1736, remarked that the eyes of all the world were
fixed upon the lines of Perekop. A year later. Rondeau himself
observed of Russia, with some apprehension, that " this Court begins to
have a great deal to say in the aiFairs of Europe." Cardinal Fleury was
even more disturbed. " Russia in respect to the equilibrium of the north,"
he wrote, in his secret instructions to the Marquis de La Chetardie,
the new French ambassador at St Petersburg, "has mounted to too
high a degree of power and its union with the House of Austria is
extremely dangerous." Indeed, after the Peace of Belgrade, the Russian
alliance alone gave to Austria so much as the semblance of independence.
The obvious way to render this alliance unserviceable to the Emperor
was to involve Russia in hostilities with some other Power. Sweden
which, even now, was, chiefly from her geographical position, of more
account in the European concert than either Prussia or Holland, was
regarded by the Court of Versailles as the instrument most useful for its
purposes, especially after the rise at Stockholm, about this time, of the
warlike Hat party, described below. Instigated by France, whose ample
subsidies, paid three years in advance, replenished their empty coffers,
the Hats in 1738 indulged in a series of warlike demonstrations, designed
1738-41] Accession of Ivan VI. 809
to provoke Russia to a rupture. A fleet was equipped; troops were
massed in Finland; and Baron Malcolm Sinclaire, a member of the
Secret Committee of the Swedish Diet, undertook to deliver despatches
to the Turkish commandant at Chocim and secretly investigate the
condition of the Russian army as he passed through Poland. When, at
the suggestion of Michael BestuzhefF, the Russian Minister at Stockholm,
Sinclaire was "suppressed" — in other words intercepted, robbed and
murdered on his return from Chocim — war between Russia and Sweden
seemed inevitable; but the bellicose humour of the Hats diminished
sensibly after Osterman had made peace with the Porte.
The Empress Anne had been more perturbed than her Ministers by
the Swedish complication, as Peterhof, where she resided during the
summer of 1740, was within easy reach of a Swedish fleet. But all
her alarms were forgotten when, in August of the same year, she held in
her arms at the font the eagerly expected heir to the throne. This little
Prince was the first-bom of the Princess of Mecklenburg-Schwerin, the
Empress' niece, whom on the death of the girl's mother (her own favourite
sister Catharine Ivanovna) she had adopted. From the first, Anne had
determined that this young Princess (who, in 1733, was received into
the Greek Church, changing her German name of Elizabeth Catharine
Christina to that of Anna Leopoldovna) should be the mother of the
future Tsar ; and in July, 1739, Anna Leopoldovna was married to the
youthful Prince Antony Uh-ic of Brunswick- Wolfenbiittel, who was
brought to Russia for tiiat express purpose and educated there at the
Empress' cost. Only six weeks after the birth of the child the Empress
(October 16), while at table, had a fit of apoplexy and was removed
insensible to her own room. On her death-bed, at Biren's urgent
request, though greatly against her own better judgment, she appointed
him Regent during the minority of her great-nephew, who was proclaimed
immediately after her death as Ivan VI.
Anne died on October 17, 1740. Three weeks later the ex-Regent
was on his way to Siberia in consequence of a smart little cowp
d'etat organised by Marshal Miinnich, who thereupon proclaimed the
mother of the baby Emperor Regent, while he assumed all real power
with the title of « Premier-Minister." By the ukase of February 8, 1741,
Osterman, who had been ousted by Miinnich, was reinstated in the
direction of foreign afiairs by the Regent, who had begun to dread the
restlessness of the Marshal. Miinnich, in great dudgeon, and believing
himself to be indispensable, hereupon sent in his resignation (March 14),
which, to his chagrin, was accepted on the same afternoon. "Count
Osterman," wrote La Chetardie to his Court shortly afterwards, "has
never been so great or so powerful as he is now. . It is not too much to
say that he is Tsar of all Russia."
The new Government had scarce been constituted, when it was
confronted by a political event of the first importance, the outbreak of
310 Be^nning of Wars of the Austrian Succession. [1741
the War, or rather Wars, of the Austrian Succession. The necessity,
from the French point of view, of fettering Russia, Maria Theresa's one
ally, now became urgent. Again, the French influence was exerted to
the uttermost in Sweden, and this time successfully. At the beginning
of August, 1741, Sweden declared war against Russia, and invaded
Finland. To embarrass the Russian Government stiU further, a domestic
revolution in Russia itself was simultaneously planned by La Chetardie
with the object of placing the Tsesarevna Elizabeth on the throne. The
immediate object of this manteuvre was to get rid of Osterman, the one
statesman in Europe who had guaranteed the Pragmatic Sanction with
the deliberate intention of defending it. The sudden irruption of the
young King of Prussia into Silesia, the defection of France, and the
treachery of Saxony, had taken him by surprise. Old as he was in
statecraft, he had not calculated upon such a C3Tiical disregard of the
most solemn treaties. He stigmatised the invasion of Silesia as "an
ugly business"; and, when he was informed officially of the partition
treaty whereby the Elector of Saxony was to receive Upper Silesia,
Lower Austria, and Moravia, with the title of King of Moravia, he
sarcastically enquired whether this was the way in which Saxony meant
to manifest the devotion she had always professed for the House of
Austria. He shrewdly suspected that the Moravian scheme must,
inevitably, bring along with it a surrender by the Elector of Saxony
of the Polish Crown to Stanislaus Leszczynski, the French King's
father-in-law, in which case the interests of Russia would be directly
menaced. He sent a strong note of remonstrance to the King of
Prussia, and assured the Courts of the Hague and St James' of his
readiness to concur in any just measures for preserving the integrity of
the Austrian dominions. For the present, however, he was prevented
from sending any assistance to the hard-pressed Queen of Hungary
by the Swedish War with which the French Government had saddled
him. Nevertheless, the Swedish declaration had found him not unpre-
pared. More than 100,000 of the best Russian troops were already
under arms in Finland, and Marshal Lacy's victory at Vilmanstraiid, at
the end of August, relieved the old statesman of all fears from without.
The French ambassador, profoundly depressed by this unexpected
triumph of the Russian arms, was even disposed to abandon, or at least
postpone, the second part of his scheme, a coup d'itat in favour of
Elizabeth Petrovna. " An outbreak, the success of which can never be
morally certain, especially now that the Swedes are not in a position to
lend a hand would, prudently considered, be very difficult to bring about,
unless it could be substantially backed up " — such was his official report
on December 6, 1741. In the preceding night Elizabeth, without any
help from without, had overthrown the existing Government in a couple
of hours. As a matter of fact, beyond lending Elizabeth 2000 ducats
instead of the 15,000 demanded by her. La Chetardie took no part in
the actual coup d'Stat.
i74i] The coup d'etat of December 6, 1741. 311
Elizabeth Petrovna was bom on December 18, 1709, on the day of
her father's triumphal entry into his capital after the victory of Poltawa.
From her earliest years the child delighted everyone by her extraordinary
beauty and vivacity. She was stiU one of the handsomest women in
Europe ; and even six years later Lord Hyndford described her as " worthy
of the admiration of all the world." Her natural parts were excellent ;
but her education had been both imperfect and desultory. On the death
of her mother, and the departure from Russia, three months later, of her
beloved sister Anne, Duchess of Holstein-Gottorp (1727), the Princess,
at the age of 18, was left pretty much to herself. As her father's daughter,
she was obnoxious to the Dolgorukis, who kept her away from the Court
during the reign of Peter II. Robust and athletic, she delighted in field-
sports, hunting, and violent exercise ; but she had inherited much of her
father's sensual temperament ; and her life in the congenial environment
of Moscow had been far from edifying. During the reign of her cousin
Anne, Elizabeth effaced herself as much as possible, well aware that the
Empress, of whom she stood in some awe, regarded her as a possible
supplanter. She never seems to have thought of asserting her rights
to the throne till the idea was suggested to her by La Chetardie and
his Swedish colleague, Nolcken, who communicated with her through
her PVench physician Armand Lestocq. Frequent collisions with the
Regent, Anna Leopoldovna, whom she despised, and with Osterman,
whom she hated for setting her aside in favour of aliens and foreigners,
though he owed everything himself to her father and mother, first
awakened her ambition; but her natural indolence was very difficult
to overcome. Not till December 5, 1741, when the Guards quartered
in the capital, on whom Elizabeth principally relied, were ordered to
hold themselves in readiness to proceed to the seat of war, did she take
the decisive step. That night a hurried and anxious conference of her
partisans, foremost among whom were Lestocq, her chamberlain Michael
Vorontsoff, her favourite and future husband, the Cossack, Alexis Razum-
offsky, and Alexander and Peter Shuvaloff, two of the gentlemen of her
household, was held at her house. The result of their deliberations was
that Elizabeth buckled on a cuirass, armed herself with a demi-pike, and,
proceeding to the barracks of the Guards, won them over by a spirited
harangue at two o'clock in the morning. Then, at the head of a regiment
of the Preobrazhensk Grenadiers, she sledged, over the snow, to the
Winter Palace, where the Regent lay sleeping in absolute security,
arresting all her real or suspected adversaries, including Osterman and
Munnich, on her way. The Regent, aroused from her slumbers by
Elizabeth herself, submitted quietly and was conveyed to Elizabeth's
sledge. The baby Tsar and his little sister followed behind on a second
sledge. In less than an hour, bloodlessly and noiselessly, the revolution
had been accomplished. Even so late as eight o'clock the next morning,
very few people in the city were aware that, during the night, Elizabeth
312 Character of Elizabeth Petrovna. [i74i
Petrovna had been raised to her father's throne on the shoulders of the
Preobrazhensk Grenadiers.
Thus, at the age of three and thirty, this naturally indolent and
self-indulgent woman, with little knowledge and no previous training or
experience of aiFairs, was suddenly placed at the head of a vast empire
at one of the most critical periods of its existence. La Chetardie had
already expressed his conviction that Elizabeth, once on the throne,
would banish all foreigners, however able, give her entire confidence
to necessarily ignorant Russians, retire to her well-beloved Moscow, let
the fleet rot, and utterly neglect St Petersburg and "the conquered
provinces," as the Baltic seaboard was still called. Unfortunately for
his calculations. La Chetardie, while exaggerating the defects, had ignored
the good qualities, of the new Empress. For, with all her short-comings,
Elizabeth was no ordinary woman. Her possession of the sovereign
gift of choosing and using able counsellors, her unusually sound and
keen judgment, and her bluff but essentially business-like joviality, again
and again recall Peter the Great. What to her impatient contemporaries
often seemed irresolution or sluggishness, was, generally, suspense of
judgment in exceptionally difficult circumstances, and her ultimate
decision was generally correct. If to this it is added that the welfare of
her beloved country always lay nearest to her heart, and that she was
ever ready to sacrifice the prejudices of the woman to the duties of
the sovereign, we shall recognise, at once, that Russia did well at this
crisis to place her destinies in the hands of Elizabeth Petrovna.
It is true that, as La Chetardie had predicted, almost the first act of
Elizabeth was to disgrace and exile all the foreigners who had held sway
during the last two reigns. Osterman could expect little mercy from a
Princess whom all his life long he had consistently neglected and despised.
Elizabeth had often declared that she would one day teach " that petty
little secretary" his proper place. She was now as good as her word.
Osterman was charged with having contributed to the elevation of the
Empress Anne by his cabals, and with having suppressed the will of
Catharine I in favour of her eldest daughter. He replied, with dignity,
that all he had ever done had been for the good of the State. His
principal fellow-victim, Miinnich, was accused of having wasted his men
during the Crimean campaigns. He referred to his own despatches in
justification of his conduct, and declared that the only thing in the past he
really regretted was having neglected to hang Prince Nikita Trubetskoy,
the President of the Tribunal actually trying him, for malversation of
funds while serving under him as chief of the commissariat. Osterman,
Miinnich, and four other fallen dignitaries, were condemned to death ;
but their sentences were commuted on the scaffold to life-long banish-
ment in Siberia. Osterman died at BerezofT six years later. Miinnich
was sent to Pelim, to reside in the very house which he had himself
designed for the reception of Biren, whom, by a singular irony of fate, he
i74i] The new Russian Chancellor Alexis Bestuzheff. 313
chanced to encounter in the midst of the frozen wilderness, posting hope-
ftilly back to all that his rival, Miinnich, was leaving behind him.
The best justification of Elizabeth for thus abruptly extinguishing
the illustrious foreigners who had done so much to build up the Russian
Empire was that she placed at the head of aiFairs a native Russian
statesman whom, personally, she greatly disliked, but whose genius and
experience she rightly judged to be indispensable to Russia at that
particular moment. This was Alexis Bestuzheff, the youngest and most
precocious of Peter the Great's " fledglings," who had begun his diplo-
matic career at the early age of nineteen, when he served as second Russian
plenipotentiary at the Congress of Utrecht. From 1717 to 1720 he had
occupied the honourable but peculiar post of Hanoverian Minister at
St Petersburg, subsequently representing Russia at Copenhagen from
1721 till the death of Peter I. For the next fifteen years, for some
inexplicable reason, he fell into the background. Towards the end of
the reign of Anne, however, Biren recalled him to Russia to counter-
balance the influence of Osterman ; but he fell with his patron, and only
reemerged from the obscurity of disgrace on the accession of Elizabeth.
He drew up the first ukase of the new Empress, and at the end of the
year 1741 was made Vice-Chancellor.
It is difficult to diagnose the character of this sinister and elusive
statesman. He seems to have been a moody, taciturn hypochondriac,
fuU of wiles and ruses, preferring to work silently and subterraneously.
Inordinate love of power was certainly his ruling passion, and he hugged
it the more closely as he had had to bide his time till he was nearly
fifty. He was a man who remorselessly crushed his innumerable enemies ;
yet, in justice, it must be added that his enemies were also, for the
most part, those of his country, and that nothing could turn him a
hair's breadth from the policy which he considered to be best suited to
the interests of the State. This true policy he alone, for a long time, of
all his contemporaries, had the wisdom to discern and the courage to
pursue. Bestuzheff's most serious fault as a diplomatist was that he
put far too much temper and obstinacy into his undertakings. His
prejudices were always invincible. On the other hand, he was quite
fearless and absolutely incorruptible.
The first care of the new Empress, after abolishing the Cabinet
system which had prevailed during the reigns of the two Annes,
and reconstituting the Administrative Senate, as it had been under
Peter the Great, was to compose her quarrel with Sweden. As already
indicated, the sudden collapse of Sweden had come as a disagreeable
surprise to the Court of Versailles. To baulk Russia of the fruits of her
triumph, by obtaining the best possible terms for discomfited Sweden,
was now the main object of the French diplomatists in the north. La
Chetardie was accordingly instructed to offer the mediation of France, and
to use all his efforts for cajoling the new Empress into an abandonment
314 Conclusion of the war with Sweden. [1742-3
of her rights of conquest. In February, 1742, therefore, he suggested to
Elizabeth, at a private interview, that the victorious Russians should
sacrifice something for the benefit of the vanquished Swedes in order to
satisfy the honour of France ! The Empress, very pertinently, enquired
what opinion her own subjects would be likely to have of her, if she so
little regarded the memory of her illustrious father as to cede provinces
won by him at the cost of so much Russian blood and treasure ? Bes-
tuzheiF, to whom the Frenchman next applied, roundly declared that no
negotiations with Sweden could be thought of except on a uti possidetis
basis. " I should deserve to lose my head on the block," he concluded,
" if I counselled her Imperial Majesty to cede a single inch of territory."
At a subsequent council it was decided to decline the French offer of
mediation, and prosecute the Swedish war with vigour. By the end of
1742 the whole of Finland was in the hands of the Russians. On
January 23, 1743, direct negotiations between the two Powers were
opened at Abo ; and, on August 17, peace was concluded, Sweden ceding
to Russia aU the southern part of Finland east of the river Kymmene,
including the fortresses of Vilmanstrand and Fredrikshamn. Bestuzheff
would have held out for the whole grand duchy ; but the Empress over-
ruled him. Even so this was a great blow to France. La Chetardie,
perceiving that he was no longer of any use at St Petersburg, obtained
his letters of recall, and quitted Russia (July, 1742).
The French Government had discovered that nothing was to be
hoped from Russia, so long as Bestuzheff held the direction of foreign
affairs. To overthrow him as speedily as possible, therefore, now became
the primary object of the Court of Versailles and its allies. This
determination to rid the league which proposed to partition the
Habsburg dominions of the obnoxious Minister is the only clue to the
unravelling of that intricate web of intrigue and counter-intrigue which
has made the seven first years of the reign of Elizabeth Petrovna such
a diplomatic puzzle. Bestuzheff, like Osterman before him, was on
principle opposed to France, as the natural antagonist of Russia in
Turkey, Poland and Sweden, where the interests of the two States were
diametrically opposed to each other. Like Osterman, therefore, he leant
upon the Austrian alliance. But the policy of the alert and enter-
prising Bestuzheff had a far wider range than that of the slow and
cautious Osterman. Starting from the assumption that the norm of
Russia's proper policy at this period was hostility to France, he insisted
that all her enemies must necessarily be the friends, and all her
friends the enemies, of Russia. The most active ally of France, the
aggressive King of Prussia, was especially to be guarded against,
whereas the friendship of Great Britain, the secular antagonist of
France, must be sedulously cultivated. Bestuzheff consequently aimed
at a combination of all the enemies of France and Prussia which, in the
first instance, was to take the form of a quadruple alliance between
1743] The " Botta-Lopukhina Conspiracy." 315
Russia, Austria, Great Britain and Saxony. Here, however, he was on
dangerously slippery ground, where a single stumble might mean irre-
trievable ruin; for the representatives of the three Powers whom he
wished to bring into line with Russia had all been active and ardent
supporters of Anna Leopoldovna, and as such had done their best to
keep Elizabeth from the throne altogether. Of this the Empress was,
by this time, well aware. Her antipathies, therefore, were very naturally
directed against those Powers which had been her adversaries while she
was only Tsesarevna; and it required some courage on the part of
BestuzhefF to defend a policy which, indispensable as it might be, was
abhorrent to his sovereign for strong personal reasons. Moreover, the
intimate personal friends of the Empress, headed by Lestocq, aU of
them extremely jealous of the superior talents and rising influence of
Bestuzhefi', were now in the pay of France and Prussia, and ready, at the
bidding of the French charge d'aflaires, d'AUion, to embark in any
project for overthrowing the philo-Austrian Vice-Chancellor. The
expedient finally adopted was a bogus conspiracy alleged to be on foot
for the purpose of replacing on the throne Prince Ivan (who, since the
revolution, had been detained, provisionally, with his parents, at the
fortress of Dunamiinde) — a conspiracy which, very ingeniously, was made
to include most of Elizabeth's former rivals at her cousin's Court, such
as Natalia Lopukhina and the Countess Anna Garielevna, consort of
Michael Bestuzheff, the Vice-Chancellor's elder brother. The former
Austrian ambassador. Marquis de Botta, was alleged to be the chief
promoter of the afFair. This trumped-up conspiracy was "miraculously
discovered" by Lestocq and burst upon the Empress in August, 1748.
After a rigid inquisition of twenty-five days, during which every variety
of torture was freely employed against the accused, " the terrible plot,"
says the new English Minister, Sir Cyril Wych, "was found to be little
more than the ill-considered discourses of a couple of spiteful passionate
women." Nevertheless, the two ladies principally concerned had their
tongues publicly torn out before being sent to Siberia ; and the Russian
ambassador at Vienna was instructed to demand Botta's condign punish-
ment. This was done at a special audience ; whereupon Maria Theresa,
with her usual spirit, declared that she would never admit the validity
of extorted evidence, and issued a manifesto to all the Great Powers
defending Botta and accusing the Russian Court of rank injustice.
Thus Lestocq, or rather the anti- Austrian League of which he was
the tool, had succeeded in mutually estranging the Courts of St Peters-
burg and Vienna ; and the result of the "Lopukhina trial " was hailed as
a great diplomatic victory at Paris. But the caballers had failed to bring
Bestxizheff' to the block or even "to drive him into some obscure hole in
the country," as d' Alii on had confidently predicted they would. At the
very crisis of his peril, when his own sister-in-law was imphcated, the
Empress, always equitable when not frightened into ferocity, bad privately
316 Frederick II intrigues against Bestuzheff. [1743-4
assured the Vice-Chancellor that her confidence in him was unabated and
that not a hair of his head should be touched. But BestuzheiF had now
a still more formidable antagonist to encounter in Frederick II of Prussia.
From the very beginning of his reign Frederick had regarded Russia
as his most formidable neighbour, especially as being the ally of his
inveterate enemy the Queen of Hungary. So early as June 1, 1743, he
wrote to Mardefelt, his Minister at St Petersburg: "I should never
think of lightly provoking Russia ; on the contrary, there is nothing in
the world I would not do, in order always to be on good terms with that
Empire." A few months later, the neutrality, at least, of Russia had
become of vital importance to him. Alarmed for Silesia by the Austrian
victories in the course of 1743, he resolved to make sure of his newly-won
possessions by attacking the Queen of Hungary a second time, before
she had time to attack him. But how would Russia take this fresh and
unprovoked aggression .'' That was the question upon which everything
else depended. Fortunately the " Botta conspiracy " provided him with
an opportunity of ingratiating himself with the Russian Empress. He
wrote an autograph letter to Elizabeth, expressing his horror at the
plot against her sacred person, and ostentatiously demanded of the Court
of Vienna that Botta, who had been transferred from St Petersburg to
Berlin, should instantly be recalled. Elizabeth could not refrain from
showing her gratification. But Bestuzheff had yet to be got rid of.
"I cannot repeat too often," wrote the King of Prussia to Mardefelt
(January 25, 1744), " that until that man has been rendered harmless,
I can never reckon upon the friendship of the Empress." And again
(February 29), " it is absolutely necessary to oust the Vice-Chancellor.
So long as he is in office he will cause me a thousand chagrins."
Frederick's chief tool at St Petersburg at this time was Princess
Elizabeth of Anhalt-Zerbst, who, in February, 1744, had brought her
daughter Sophia Augusta Frederica to Russia (received into the Russian
Church under the name of Catharine Alexievna on July 8, 1744) to be
educated there and ultimately married to the Empress' nephew and heir,
Grand Duke Peter. Bestuzheff, in pursuance of his political system,
would have preferred Princess Mary of Saxony, but was overruled by
the Prussian party, who advisedly represented to the Empress that the
daughter of a petty German House would be far more manageable, and
far less dangerous to orthodoxy, than a bigoted Catholic like the Saxon
Princess. The elder Zerbst Princess very willingly united with all the
other enemies of Bestuzheff, including Mardefelt and La Chetardie, now
back at his post again, to overthrow him. But Bestuzheff more than
held his own against this fresh combination, and in June, 1744, Frederick
urged Mardefelt to change his tactics and attempt to bribe the Vice-
Chancellor. He was authorised to spend as much as 500,000 crowns for
the purpose. Then, trusting to the savcAr-fmre of Mardefelt and the
potent influence of the bank-notes, Frederick, at the end of August,
1744-5] Bestuzheff" counsels war against Frederick. 317
threw off the mask and invaded Bohemia at the head of 60,000 men.
By the end of September his troops had occupied the whole kingdom.
In the extremity of her distress, Maria Theresa sent a special envoy,
Coimt Rosenberg, to St Petersburg, to express her horror at Botta's
alleged misconduct, and placed herself and her fortunes unreservedly in
the hands of her imperial sister. For two months Elizabeth hesitated
while the anti-BestuzheflF clique did all in its power to prevent any
assistance being sent to the distressed Queen of Hungary. But Bestuzheff
was now growing stronger and stronger every day. By the aid of his
secretary, Goldbach, he had succeeded in unravelling La Ch^tardie's
cipher correspondence and furnished the Empress with extracts alluding
in the most disparaging terms to herself. These Bestuzheff accompanied
by elucidatory comments. Furious at the treachery of the ever gallant
and deferential Marquis, the Empress immediately dictated to Bestuzheff
a memorandum commanding La Chetardie to quit her capital within
24 hours. On June 17, 1744, he was escorted to the frontier. Six weeks
later Elizabeth identified herself emphatically with the anti-French policy
of her Minister by promoting him to the rank of Grand Chancellor.
Bestuzheff now energetically represented to the Empress the necessity
of interfering in the quarrel between Frederick II and the Queen of
Hungary. He described the King of Prussia as a restless agitator,
whose character was made up of fraud and violence. He had violated
the Treaty of Breslau ; he was secretly stirring up Turkey against Russia ;
he had impudently used neutral Saxon territory as a stepping-stone to
Bohemia ; he had procured the dissolution of the Grodno Diet to prevent
the discovery of his anti-Russian intrigues, thus aiming a direct blow at
the supremacy which Russia had enjoyed in Poland ever since the days of
Peter the Great. The balance of power in Europe should be restored
instantly, and at any cost, by reducing Frederick to his proper place.
These representations, all of them substantially correct, profoundly
impressed the Empress. In the beginning of 1745 she gave a clear
proof of her reconciliation with Austria by bluntly refusing Frederick a
succour of 6000 men, though bound by her last defensive treaty with
Prussia to assist him. Bestuzheff then submitted to the British Govern-
ment an intervention project, which was rejected as too onerous and
exorbitant; while Frederick, thoroughly alarmed, offered Bestuzheff
100,000 crowns, if he woidd acquiesce in Prussia's appropriating another
slice of Silesia, an offer which the Russian Chancellor haughtily rejected.
Frederick's subsequent declaration of war against Saxony greatly agitated
the Russian Court ; and three successive Ministerial councils (August —
September, 1745), inspired by Bestuzheff, unanimously advised an armed
intervention. Elizabeth thereupon signed an ukase commanding that the
60,000 men stationed in Esthonia and Livonia should at once advance
into Courland, so as to be nearer the Prussian frontier and ready for any
emergency. A manifesto was also addressed to the King of Prussia,
318 Triumph of the Austrian party at St Petersburg. [1745-8
warning him that Russia would consider herself bound to assist Saxony
if invaded by him. But nothing came of it all. Bestuzheff relied for
the success of his plan on British subsidies ; but the British Cabinet,
having already secured the safety of Hanover by a secret understanding
with the King of Prussia, had resolved upon neutrality, A subsequent
proposal (January 6, 1746) that, if the Maritime Powers would advance
to Russia a subsidy of six millions, she would at once place 100,000 men
in the field and end the German war in a single campaign, was likewise
rejected by Great Britain.
Bestuzheff had been unable to prevent the conclusion of the Peace
of Dresden, December 25, 1745 ; yet the menacing attitude of the
Russian Chancellor had contributed to make the King of Prussia,
despite his recent victories, moderate his demands. Moreover, Frederick
now played into BestuzhefF's hands by indulging in one of those
foolish jests for which he had so often to pay dear. Before departing
for Saxony, he had requested the mediation of both Russia and
Turkey, at the same time remarking with a sneer, at a public reception,
that, in his opinion, the mediation of a Turk was every whit as good
as the mediation of a Greek. Elizabeth, promptly informed of this,
was wounded in her tenderest point. That she, the devout mother
of all the Orthodox, should be placed in the same category with the
successor of the False Prophet revolted her, and her sentiments towards
"the Nadir Shah of Berlin," as she called the King of Prussia, com-
pletely changed. Henceforth political antagonism and private pique
combined to make her the most determined adversary of Frederick II.
The political triumph of the Austrian party at St Petersburg is to
be dated from the conclusion of the defensive alliance of June 2, 1745,
whereby each of the contracting parties agreed to aid the other, within
three months of being attacked, with 30,000 men or, in case Prussia
was the aggressor, with 60,000. Frederick saw in this compact a veiled
plan for attacking him on the first opportunity, and in the course of the
same summer formed another plot to overthrow Bestuzheff, which only
recoiled on the heads of its promoters in St Petersburg. Bestuzheff's
subsequent endeavours to round off his system by contracting an alliance
with Great Britain was partially realised by the Treaty of St Petersburg
(December 9, 1747). The victories of Maurice de Saxe in the Austrian
Netherlands, and the consequent danger to Holland, were the causes
of the somewhat belated rapprochement. By the terms of this Treaty, the
Empress, besides agreeing to hold a corps of observation, 30,000 strong,
on the Coiu-land frontier, at the disposal of Great Britain for d&l 00,000
a year, engaged to despatch Prince Vasily Repnin with another corps
of 30,000 to the Rhine, on condition that 6^300,000 a year was paid for
these troops by England and Holland, four months in advance. The
tidings of the approach of Repnin's army sufficed to induce France to
accelerate the peace negotiations, and, on April 30, 1748, a preliminary
1748-55] Political duel between Frederick and Bestuzheff. 319
convention was signed between the Court of Versailles and the Maritime
Powers at Aix-la-Chapelle.
Never yet had Russia stood so high in the estimation of Europe as
in the autumn of 1748 ; and she owed her commanding position entirely
to the tenacity of purpose of the Grand Chancellor, In the face of
apparently insurmountable obstacles, Bestuzheff had honourably extracted
his country from the Swedish imbroglio; reconciled his imperial mistress
with the Courts of London and Vienna ; reestablished friendly relations
with these Powers ; freed Russia from the yoke of foreign influence ;
compelled both Prussia and France to abate their pretensions in the
very hour of their victory; and, finally, isolated the restless, perturbing
King of Prussia by environing him with hostile alliances.
The seven years which succeeded the War of the Austrian Succession
were little more than an armed truce between apprehensive and dis-
satisfied adversaries — an indispensable breathing-space between a past
contest which everyone felt to have been inconclusive, and a future
contest which everyone knew to be inevitable. Both the Peace of
Aix'la-Chapelle and that of Breslau had been forced from without
upon active belligerents. In the first case, the unexpected intervention
of Russia had arrested the triumphal progress of the French armies;
in the second, the sudden desertion of England had compelled Austria
to surrender Silesia to the King of Prussia. The consequences of these
prematurely suppressed hostilities were an unnatural tension between
the various Em-opean Powers, a loosening of time-honoured alliances, and
a cautious groping after newer and surer combinations. But Frederick
was uneasy in the midst of his triumphs, and, far from diminishing his
armaments after the war was over, prudently increased them. He had,
indeed, nothing to fear at present from exhausted Austria; but the
attitude of Russia continued as menacing as ever. In the autumn of
1750, Frederick, incensed beyond measure by an imperial rescript issued
by Bestuzheff ordering all Russian subjects natives of the Baltic Provinces
actually in the Prussian service to return to their homes, deliberately
insulted the Russian resident at Berlin, Gross, who was thereupon
recalled (October 25), and diplomatic intercourse between the two
countries was suspended.
AU this time Bestuzheff had been doing his utmost to promote his
favourite project of a strong Anglo-Russian alliance with the object of
"still further clipping the wings of the King of Prussia." But the
Empress, who throughout these protracted negotiations exhibited a
truer political instinct than her Chancellor, was by no means disposed
to tie her own hands in order to oblige England. She perceived clearly,
what Bestuzheff did not or would not recognise, that the interests of the
two States at this period were too divergent to admit of any alliance profit-
able to Russia being formed between them. For more than three years
all the arguments of the Chancellor were powerless to move her. At
320 The Treaties of Westminster and F&rsailles. [1755-c
last, on September 19, 1755, a new convention was signed at St Peters-
burg between Great Britain and Russia, whereby the latter Power engaged
to furnish, in case of war, an auxiliary corps of 30,000 for a diversion
against Prussia, in return for an annual subsidy from Great Britain of
^^500,000. When, however, two months later, the ratification of this
treaty was in question, Elizabeth stiU hesitated to set her hand to it.
She suspected, not without reason, that the English Government would
require a large proportion of the Russian contingent to fight their own
battles on the Rhine, or in the Low Countries, and she was not disposed
to direct her troops thither. Finally, on February 1, 1756, the rati-
fications were added ; but the Empress never forgave Bestuzheff for the
vehemence and petulance by means of which he had forced her hand.
Yet the treaty which it had taken years to negotiate was already waste
paper. A fortnight before the exchange of the ratifications an event had
occurred at the other end of Europe which shattered all the cunning
combinations of the Russian Chancellor, completely changed the com-
plexion of foreign politics, and precipitated a general European war.
Frederick had been beforehand with his adversaries. Recognising
the fact that decadent France could no longer be profitable to him,
and alarmed by the rumours of the impending negotiations between
Great Britain and Russia, he calculated that the chances, on the whole,
were in favour of the superior usefulness of an English alliance, and
(January 16, 1756) signed the Treaty of Westminster with Great
Britain, whereby the two contracting Powers agreed to unite their
forces to oppose the entry into or the passage through Germany, of
the troops of any other foreign Power. The Treaty of Westminster
precipitated the conclusion of the Franco- Austrian rapprochement which
the Austrian Chancellor Kaunitz had been long preparing. On May 1,
1756, a defensive alliance, directed against Prussia, was formed at Ver-
sailles between the French and Austrian Governments. To this treaty
Russia, Sweden, and Saxony were to be invited to accede.
The position of the Russian Chancellor was now truly pitiable. He
had expended all his energy in carrying through an alliance with Great
Britain which was now only so much waste paper. He had repeatedly
declared that Prussia could never unite with Great Britain, or Austria
with France, and now both these alleged impossibilities had actually
taken place. No wonder that the Empress lost all confidence in him,
especially as he still clung obstinately to a past condition of things, and
refused to bow to the inexorable logic of accomplished facts. He was
well aware that, if Great Britain could no longer be counted upon for
help against Prussia, the assistance of France would be indispensable;
yet so inextinguishable was his hatred of France that he could not
reconcile himself to the idea of an alliance with that Power in any
circumstances. Consequently, his whole .policy, henceforth, became
purely obstructive and therefore purely mischievous.
1756] Accession of Russia to Franco-Austrian Alliance. 321
The course of events in Russia demonstrated that his influence was
already gone. At the second sitting (February 22, 1756) of the newly
established "Ministerial Conference," a permanent and paramount
Department of State formed early in 1756, to advise the Empress on all
matters relating to foreign affairs, Elizabeth decided that England's
treaty with Prussia had nullified all the existing Anglo-Russian con-
ventions. At its third session (March 14), the Conference determined
to invite the Courts of Versailles, Vienna and Stockholm to cooperate
with Russia " to reduce the King of Prussia within proper limits so that
he might no longer be a danger to the German Empire," thus antici-
pating by nearly two months the Treaty of Versailles. It then decreed
that the army should be mobilised forthwith, so as to spin- Austria on
to more rapid action. The Austrian ambassador at St Petersburg was,
at the same time, instructed to inform his Court that the Russian
Empress was ready to conclude a definite treaty with France whenever
invited to do so. After this the inclusion of Russia in the grand
alliance against Prussia was only a matter of time.
On December 31, 1756, the Russian Empress formally acceded to the
Treaty of Versailles, at the same time binding herself, by a secret article,
to assist France if attacked by England in Europe; France at the
same time contracting a corresponding secret obligation to give Russia
pecuniary assistance in the event of her being attacked by Turkey. The
secret articles of the Versailles Treaty of May 1, as between France and
Austria, were not, however, communicated to the Court of St Petersburg.
It is certain that at this crisis of his life the King of Prussia was by
no means so well-informed as usual. Not till towards the end of June
did he suspect the existence of the Franco-Russian understanding,
and, till the end of August, he flattered himself that British influence
would prove stronger than Austrian at St Petersburg. He was also
mistaken, or misinformed, as to the relative attitudes of Russia and
Austria. He was, for instance, under the false impression that Austria
was urging on Russia against him, but that the latter Power was not
prepared and would postpone an invasion till the following spring;
whereas, in reality, it was Russia who was urging on dilatory and timorous
Austria. At the beginning of June Frederick learnt from the Hague
that Russia had definitely renounced her obligations towards England.
Early in July he told Mitchell, the English envoy at Berlin, that Russia
was lost to them ; and on August 29, 1756, he invaded Saxony. The
Seven Years' War had begun. It is beyond the scope of the present
chapter to enter into the details of the struggle. Here only the salient
facts, so far as they affected the policy of Russia and the general situa-
tion, can be very briefly adumbrated.
The lack of good generals, due to the neglect, during the last three
reigns, of Peter the Great's golden rule of forming a school of native
generals by carefully training promising young Russian officers benieath
0. M. H. VI. CH. X. 21
322 The fall of Bestuzheff. [1757-8
the eye of intelligent and experienced foreigners, was the cause of
Russia's ineiiiciency in the field during the first two campaigns. In
1757 the Russian Commander-in-chief, Stephen Aprakin, accidentally
gained the battle of Gross-Jagemdorf (August 29), one of the most
casual victories on record, through the sheer courage of raw troops
suddenly attacked by an enemy whom they were marching to outflank.
During the rest of the campaign Aprakin did nothing at all but march
and counter-march.
The great political event of the year 1757 was the resumption of
diplomatic relations between Russia and France. In the middle of June
Michael Bestuzheff, the elder brother of the Russian Chancellor, was
accredited to Paris; and, simultaneously, the new French ambassador,
Paul de I'Hopital, Marquis de Chateauneuf, arrived at St Petersburg at
the head of an extremely brilliant suite. His charming manners, ready
wit, and truly patrician liberality made him a persona gratissima at the
Russian Court; and, in conjunction with the new Austrian ambassador,
Prince Nicholas EsterhAzy, he carried everything before him. It was
through their influence that Aprakin and his friend the Chancellor
Bestuzheff were arrested, early in 1758, on a charge of conspiring with
the Grand Duchess Catharine and her friends to recall the army from
the field and hold it in readiness to support a projected coup d'etat in
case of the death of the Empress, who on September 19, 1757, had
had a slight apoplectic fit after attending mass at the parish church of
Tsarskoe Selo. Bestuzheff 's enemies had instantly connected the illness
of the Empress with the almost simultaneous retreat of the army; though
we now know for certain, that the two events were totally unconnected.
The retreat of the army had been ordered by an unanimous council of
war, held a full fortnight previously to the Empress' seizure ; while it is
obvious that the Chancellor, especially in his own veiy critical position,
had no object whatever in saving his old enemy the King of Prussia,
Bestuzheff succeeded in clearing himself completely of all the charges
brought against him ; but the Empress, while accepting his innocence
and refusing to allow him to be put to torture, showed she had lost all
confidence in him by depriving him of all his offices and dignities and
expelling him from the Court. He was succeeded as Grand Chancellor
by Michael Vorontsoff, an honest man of excellent intentions but
mediocre abilities.
The campaign of 1758 was a repetition of the campaign of 1757.
After occupying the whole of East Prussia, Aprakin's successor, General
Count WiUiam Fermor, a pupil of Miinnich and Lacy, on August 25,
defeated Frederick at Zorndorf, one of the most murderous engagements
of modern times. But Fermor was incapable of making any use of his
victory, even after being strongly reinforced ; and at the beginning of
October, he retired behind the Vistula.
Fermor seems only to have been saved from the fate of Aprakin
1758-9] Differences between the Allies. 323
by the growing conviction of the Empress and her Ministers that the
Court of Vienna was sacrificing the Russian troops to its own particular
interests. There can be no doubt that very little assistance was rendered
by the Austrians to the Russians during the last campaign, and the
apologetic tone adopted by Maria Theresa seems to show that Elizabeth
had just cause for complaint. The Empress Queen pleaded as an excuse
for her own remissness the failure of the Court of Versailles to fulfil its
obligations to Austria. France, she said, instead of despatching the
promised auxiliary corps of 30 — 40,000 men to Austria's hereditary
domains, had wasted her strength in a fruitless struggle with England-
Hanover. There were, she added, symptoms of growing weakness in
the French monarchy. Several times since the beginning of the year,
France had complained that the burden of the war was growing intoler-
able and expressed a desire for peace. Elizabeth's reply was both
dignified and determined ; but it also shows that the French influence at
St Petersburg was at this time paramount. She protested that France
had taken a more active part in the war than any other member of the
league, and had, besides, the additional merit of bringing Sweden into
it.' The alleged infirmity of the French monarchy, assuming it to exist,
was but an additional reason for assisting it more strenuously, and
not allowing it to be sacrificed to England and Prussia. The Russian
Empress opined that the war must be prosecuted till the Most High
had blessed the righteous arms of the Allies with decisive success, and
abated the pride and self-sufficiency of the King of Prussia.
Towards the end of the year, the hands of the Russian Empress were
strengthened by the accession to power in France of a new and vigorous
Minister of Foreign Affairs who fully shared her sentiments in the person
of the Due de Choiseul. The first act of the new Minister was to
notify Michael Bestuzheff that pacific overtures had been made to
Great Britain through the Danish Court with the object of isolating
the King of Prussia, but that the English Ministers had steadily refused
to separate their cause from his. Choiseul further informed the Russian
ambassador that Louis XV had given his solemn word never to make
peace without the consent of his Allies. Alexis Galitsin's despatches
from London were, naturally, less satisfactory than Michael Bestuzheff' 's
from Versailles. He reported "a fanatical enthusiasm of the whole
nation for the King of Prussia," and a determination on the part of
the English Ministers to make Prussia the leading German Power on
the Continent instead of Austria. The damage done by Frederick II
to the French monarchy was, no doubt, at the bottom of England's
respect for him.
The increasing financial difficulties! of the Russian Government in
1759, prevented the army from taking the field till April; and, on
May 19, the incurably sluggish Fermor was superseded by Count Peter
Soltikoff; an officer who hitherto had been mainly occupied in drilling
„.. _ 21—2
324 The campaign of Ktmersdorf. \ [i759
the militia of the Ukraine. Frederick II communicated this new
appointment to his brother Prince Henry with more than his usual
caustic acerbity. " Fermor," he wrote, " has received by way of appear
dage one Soltikoff, who is said to be more imbecile than anything in the
clodhopper way which Russia has yet produced." Within three weeks
this "clodhopper" was to reduce the King of Prussia to the last
extremity.
Although suddenly pitted against the most redoubtable captain of
the age without having ever before commanded an army in the field,
SoltikofiF seems to have accepted his tremendous responsibilities without
the slightest hesitation. On July 9, he reached headquarters; on
July 23, he defeated, near Kay, the Prussian general Wedell, who had
attempted to prevent his junction with the Austrians; early in August
he united with Laudon at Frankfort on Oder ; and, on August 12, the
allies annihilated the army of the King of Prussia at Kunersdorf.
Frederick was only saved from death or captivity, in the general stam-
pede, by the devotion of Rittmeister Prittwitz and forty hussars. Late
the same evening, 3000 repentant fugitives rallied to his standard, the
sole remnant of a host of 48,000 men. Mortal indeed had been the
hug of the " bears of the Holy Roman Empire," as he himself dubbed
the Russians at the end of the year, when he had in a measure recovered
from the shock of " that horrible catastrophe."
"Your Imperial Majesty must not be surprised at our serious
casualties," wrote the triumphant Soltikoff to the Empress on the
following day, "for you know that the King of Prussia always sells
victory dearly. Another such victory, your Majesty, and I shall, be
obliged myself to plod staff in hand to St Petersburg with the joyful
tidings, for lack of messengers." Soltikoff received the marshal's iatmi
from his own sovereign, and a diamond<-ring, a jewelled snuff-box and
5000 ducats from Maria Theresa. His health was also drunk, "in
imperial Tokay," at a grand banquet given at Versailles by Michad
Bestuzheff in honour of the event, at which Choiseul and eighty of
the most distinguished men in France were present. Nor were these
rejoicings at all exaggerated. At that moment the ruin of the King of
Prussia seemed imminent and inevitable; and, as is related elsewhere,
for the first time in his life he despaired. At the urgent request of
Frederick, Pitt at once made pacific overtures to Russia on behalf of
Prussia and proposed a peace congress, to be held at the Hague. Not
till December 12 did the Russian Empress deliver her reply to these
pacific overtures. She declared that she and her allies were equally
desirous of peace, but of a peace that should be honourable, durable,
and profitable. Such a peace, she opined, would be impossible if things
were allowed to remain on the same footing as they were before the
war. After this, it was plain to the British Ministers that no more
could be said at present, and that the war must proceed.
1759-61] Elizabeth holds the alliance together. 325
Frederick was, indeed, only saved from instant destruction by the
violent dissensions between Soltikoff and the Austrian Commander-
in-chief, Count Daun, who refused to take orders from each other,
and thus wasted all the fruits of Kunersdorf. Moreover, SoltikofF was
so elated by his astounding victories that he even refused to submit
to the behests of his own Court. In spite of repeated and urgent
orders to follow up his successes without delay, he absolutely refused
to remain in Silesia a day longer than October 15, "as the preserva-
tion of my army ought to be my primary consideration." At the
beginning of November he deliberately marched off to his magazines
at Posen.
It is not too much to say that, from the end of 1759 to the end of
1761, the unshakable firmness of the Russian Empress was the one
constraining political force which held together the! heterogeneous, inces-
santly changing elements of the anti-Prussian combination, and prevented
it from collapsing before the shock of disaster. From the Russian
point of view, Elizabeth's greatness as a ruler consists in her steady
appreciation of Russian interests, and her determination to promote
and consolidate them at all hazards. She insisted throughout that the
King of Prussia must be rendered harmless to his neighbours for the
future, and that the only way to bring this about was to curtail his
dominions and reduce him to the rank of an Elector. Russia's share
of his partitioned dominions was to be the province alresidy in her
possession — Ducal Prussia as it was then called — certainly a very
moderate compensation for her preponderating success and enormous
sacrifices. On January 1, 1760, the Empress told Esterhdzy that she
meant to continue the war in conjunction with her allies, even if she
were compelled to sell all her diamonds and half her wearing apparel ;
but she also declared that the time had now come when Russia should be
formally guaranteed the possession of her conquest. Ducal Prussia. The
Court of Vienna was greatly perturbed. Maria Theresa was well aware
that France would never consent to the aggrandisement of Russia ; yet
she herself was in such absolute need of the succour of the Russian troops
that she was obliged to yield to the insistence of Elizabeth. Accordingly,
on April 1, 1760, fresh conventions were signed between Austria and
Russia, providing for the continuation of the war and the annexation of
Ducal Prussia to Russia. When Louis XV categorically refused to accept
these conventions in their existing form, and compelled Maria Theresa
to strike out the article relating to Ducal Prussia, the Empress Queen
added to the conventions so amended a secret clause, never communicated
to the Court of Versailles, virtually reinserting the cancelled article.
The British Ministers were not less apprehensive than were the Ministers
of France lest Russia should claim any territorial compensation from
Frederick II ; for, in view of the unyielding disposition of the King of
Prussia, such a claim meant the indefinite prolongation of the war, or,
326 The campaign of llTBO. [i760
which was even worse and far more probable, the speedy and complete
coUapse of the Prussian monarchy.
R-ederick himself has told us that in 1760 the Russians had only to
step forward in order to give him the coup de grdce. Elizabeth was
equally well aware of this, and the New Year was not three days old
when she summoned Soltikoff to the capital to draw up a plan of
campaign. The plan he finally submitted was simplicity itself. It
may best be described as an ingenious method of avoiding a general
engagement at aU hazards, and keeping out of harm's way as much as
possible. He was curtly informed that Russia's obUgations to her allies
demanded a more aggressive, adventurous strategy, and reminded that
after the experience of Kunersdorf there was no longer any reason to
be a&aid " of hazarding our army in an engagement with the King of
Prussia, however desperate and bloody." Elizabeth's own plan was that
Soltikoff should proceed at once to Silesia to cooperate there with
Laudon, who had, at her particular request, been appointed to an inde-
pendent command on the Oder, and was there holding Prince Henry of
Prussia in check, while Daun, with another Austrian army, stood face
to face with Frederick in Saxony. Before quitting Posen for Silesia
Soltikoff was also instructed to detach 15,000 men, to besiege for the
second time the maritime fortress of Kolberg, as a first step towards
conquering Pomerania. Soltikoff set out for the army early in the
spring ; and nothing but captious criticisms, dolorous grumblings, and
perplexing accounts of insignificant skirmishes, was heard of or from him
for the next three months. His absurd caution more than neutralised
the victories of Laudon at Landshut and Glatz, and the mere intelli-
gence of the battle of Liegnitz drove him back into Polish temtory.
Simidtaneous reports from General Chernuisheff informed the Empress
that the whole army was in an anarchical condition and that the
Commander-in-chief could do nothing but wring his hands and shed
tears. It was now evident that Soltikoff 's mind had become unhinged
by his responsibilities. He was accordingly superseded, in the beginning
of September, by the senior officer in the service, Field-Marshal Alexander
Buturlin, who led the army back behind the Vistula. The closing inci-
dents of this campaign were the occupation of Berlin (October 9-12)
by Chernuisheff and Todtleben, which caused great rejoicings at St
Petersburg and helped to refill the depleted Russian Treasury, the
contributions levied amounting, to 1,000,000 thalers, and the second
siege of Kolberg, which proved to be an expensive failure.
If France and Austria had only with the utmost difficulty been
persuaded to continue the War at the end of 1769, it may be imagined
with what feelings they faced the prospect of another campaign at the
end of 1760. Even in Russia itself there was now a very general desire
for peace. The customary New Year illuminations in front of the
Winter Palace at St Petersburg gave eloquent expression to this desire.
i76i] Elizabeth insists on permanent crippling of Prussia. 327
The principal transparency represented a winged genius (the New Year)
with a gift in his hand, in the shape of a laurel wreath intertwined
with an olive-branch, standing upon captured standards, cannon, and
other military trophies, with the keys of Berlin in front of him. The
contemporary Russian gazettes also emphasised the rumour that " Our
most gracious Sovereign has expressly stated that the sole object of the
glorious triumph of her arms is the restoration and the maintenance
of peace." But peace was only obtainable by fresh exertions; these
required plenty of money ; and where was the money to come from ?
The new Commander-in-chief had demanded a minimum of 2,031,000
roubles (about ^£"457,000) for putting the army on a war footing, but
only about three-quarters of that amount was available.
And there was yet another difficulty. The allies of Russia were fast
approaching the limits of their endurance, and were becoming clamorous
for peace. On January 22, 1761, the new French ambassador at
St Petersburg, the Baron de Breteuil, presented a despatch to the Russian
Chancellor to the effect that the King of France, by reason of the con-
dition of his dominions, absolutely desired peace, especially as the King
of Prussia, being at the end of his resources, would now doubtless listen
to any reasonable propositions. On the following day the Austrian
ambassador delivered a memorandum to the same effect. In her reply
of February 12, Elizabeth declared that she would not consent to any
pacific overtures until the original object of the League, "the essential
and permanent crippling of the King of Prussia," had been accomplished*
Even if Austria could not get back all she had a right to, she should at
least retain possession of her actual conquests in Silesia. The King of
Poland should also be compensated for the inhuman devastation of his
lands by the duchy of Magdeburg and all the Prussian possessions in
Lusatia. Sweden's Pomeranian frontier should also be "advantageously
rectified." Russia demanded nothing for herself besides Ducal Prussia,
or, in default thereof, adequate compensation elsewhere " from her loyal
allies." This reply was accompanied by a letter from Elizabeth to
Maria Theresa rebuking the Court of Vienna for its want of candour in
negotiating with France behind the back of Russia, and threatening, ill
case of any repetition of such a violation of treaties, to treat with the
King of Prussia directly and independently. Elizabeth declared, how-
ever, that she was not averse from a peace congress sitting while the war
still went on, though she was firmly opposed to anything like a truce as
being likely to be " extremely useful to the King of Prussia." To these
propositions the allies yielded after some debate. A fresh Russian note,
at the beginning of May, laid it down as an imperative necessity that
France should leave America and the Indies alone for a time and con-
centrate aU her efforts on the Continent. Thus Russia was assuming
the lead in continental affairs, not only in arms but in diplomacy also.
The equally uncompromising attitudes of Russia and Prussia rendered
328 Death of Elizabeth Petrovna. [176I-2
another campaign inevitable; and, despite the leisurely strategy of
the Russians, it was to result most disastrously for Frederick.
Moreover, in the autumn of 1761 Pitt, his zealous friend, had been
compelled to retire from the Cabinet, and Great Britain, shortly after-
wards, had embarked in a war with Spain, so that, as Galitsin, the
Russian ambassador at London, shrewdly observed, she had no more
money to waste on the King of Prussia. Nor could he even dare to
reckon, as heretofore, on the sluggishness of the foes he feared the most
— "the bears of the Holy Roman Empire." The timid incompetency
of the first four Russian commanders-in-chief had materially simplified
his strategy. They had moved with mechanical deliberation to the
wire-pulling of a council of civilians 1000 miles off; they had sustained,
stubbornly but unintelligently, the impact of any enemy that might
happen to cut across their line of march ; and they had been amazed
after the engagement to discover, sometimes, that they had won a great
victory without being aware of it. But they had never taken any steps
to follow up their purely fortuitous triumphs and, at the slightest rumour
of danger, at the slightest suspicion of scarcity, they had retreated to
their depots behind the Vistula. But now there were ominous indications
that even in the Russian ranks the lessons of a five years' warfare were
beginning to produce good scholars. Foreign military experts already
spoke highly of Zachary Chernuisheff, who had so brilliantly cooperated
with Laudon in the capture of Schweidnitz, while the talents of young
Peter RumyantsefF, the victor of Kolberg, who had sent the keys of that
stubborn fortress to the Empress as a Christmas gift, were universally
recognised. There could be little doubt that RumyantsefF would be the
next Russian Commander-in-chief, and it was equally certain that his
strategy would be of a very different order to the strategy of his prede-
cessors. Frederick was indeed in evil case and his correspondence at this
period is a melancholy reflexion of his despair. But a fortnight after he
had informed Finkenstein of his determination to seek a soldier's death on
the first opportunity, and thus remove the chief obstacle to a peace for
want of which Prussia was perishing, he received the tidings of the death
of the Russian Empress who had expired on January 5, 1762 — and he
knew he was saved. " Morta la bestia, morto il veneno" he wrote to
Knyphausen on January 22, 1762. The first act of Elizabeth's nephew
and successor, Peter III, a fanatical worshipper of Frederick, was to
reverse the whole policy of his aunt, grant the King of Prussia peace
on his own terms (May 5), and to contract a regular defensive alliance
with "the King my master" — even going the length of placing at
Frederick's disposal Chernuisheff 's army as an auxiliary corps against
the Austrians. This shameful and unpatriotic subserviency contributed
not a little to the overthrow of Peter III, a few months later (July 9);
but the change came too late to modify the situation. Despite her
enormous expenditure of blood and money, Russia gained nothing
except prestige from her participation in the Seven Years' War.
329
CHAPTER XI.
THE REVERSAL OF ALLIANCES AND
THE FAMILY COMPACT.
Upon the death of Cardinal Fleury in January, 1743, it might have
been expected that the King of France, following the precedent set by
his great-grandfather at the death of Cardinal Mazai-in, would resolve
to take into his own hands the practical direction of affairs. But, if
Louis XV had as keen a sense as Louis XIV of the prerogatives of the
royal dignity, and was equally jealous for his authority, he had neither
the same devotion to labour, nor the same lofty conception of his duty.
He was known on more than one occasion to grieve over the sorrows of
his people ; yet he lacked not only the will to carry out the necessary
reforms, but the mere strength to look them in the face. Indolent to
the point of lethargy, he reigned without governing, suffering himself
to be led by his Ministers even while he distrusted them. Above all, in
the matter of foreign policy, he had his own ideas, tastes, and preferences;
but these he expressed half-heartedly, keeping silence as to whatever he
felt most deeply; he had, too, his own agents, his own policy, which
served more than once to paralyse or thwart ofScial diplomacy. These
agents and this policy formed the " King's Secret," famous by reason
rather of the mystery surrounding it than of the importance of the
transactions it covered, or of the influence it exercised upon the politics
of France and of Europe.
The death of Fleury marks, nevertheless, a date of importance in
the history of the reign. Although he did not boast the title of Chief
Minister, the Cardinal had been the real possessor of power, and when
he died no one was capable either of influencing the King's mind with
equal authority, or of inducing the Government to follow any consistent
course. " Never," writes one of the Ministers of this period, d'Argenson,
"have the Ministers been so deeply at variance as now. Each one is
equally master in his own department.... If they are in harmony, it is by
chance — the King is never responsible for their agreement. The least of
the departments is as independent, in its own sphere, as the greatest ;
and it is the constant effort of each to persuade the King that on it his
330 The King's favourites. Madame de Pompadour. [1742-6
greatness and glory depend. Such mutual jealousy on the part of his
viziers would be an advantage to a Prince who should administer, over-
rule all others, and make plans freely on his own account. But, instead
of those realities, what reigns over us is a vacuum All the measures
taken for the good of the State are at cross purposes one with another."
Towards the end of the Seven Years' War, there was, it is true, one
Minister, the Due de Choiseul, who, rather through his versatility than
through any statesmanlike qualities, succeeded in maintaining for a time
a position of acknowledged superiority in the direction of state aiFairs.
But neither his intellectual suppleness nor his patriotic activity, was
capable of maintaining him in power. As his rise had been mainly
due to the favour of a royal mistress (Mme de Pompadour), so his fall
was caused by the resentment of another (Mme Du Barry), whose
goodwill he had supposed his past services entitled him to treat with
disdain.
The external influence needed to dominate the weak character of the
King, without in any way aflronting his acute sense of his own authority,
not being supplied by his Ministers or by the members of the royal
family, was contributed by the ladies of his Court. Among the earlier
favourites, Mme de Mailly had all the modesty and the disinterestedness
of Mile de La Valliere ; her two sisters, Mme de Vintimille and Mme de
Chateauroux, showed a strong determination to arouse the King from
his apathy and to turn his activities in the direction of politics and of
war ; but their period of favoin: was too short for them to produce any
serious effect: the influence of the royal mistresses in the direction of
affairs began in reality with Mme de Pompadotu-.
Jeanne- Antoinette Poisson — the daughter of a wine-merchant's clerk
who had been hung in efiigy, and the wife of an official concerned in the
collection of the revenue, Lenormant d'^tioUes — had been brought up
in the express and avowed hope of winning the King's favour. She was
presented at Court in 1745, and created Marquise de Pompadour a few
months later. She had from the first won the King's heart by a com-
bination of qualities which made her one of the most fascinating women
in the kingdom ; and, by the skill with which she could amuse or divert
a monarch who was a prey to incessant ervmd, she succeeded in maintaining
her influence. Although it had not been her desire to take any part in
politics, she was not slow to perceive that in no other way could she
make her power permanent. She had at first to encounter strenuous
opposition, on account of her humble birth; and the resentment thus
roused in her reacted more than once upon the choice she made, when
she disposed, after the manner of a queen, of the highest offices of State,
Her appointments, partly for this reason, were not invariably happy:
again and again, at critical moments, certain Ministers and generals owed
their nomination simply to the place which they held in the favourite's
regard. Nor was this all-powerful influence limited to the nomination
1742-8] Peace of Aix-la-Chapelle. 331
of men to fill the public employments and offices, but it was also of the
greatest weight in the whole direction of political affairs. Throughout
this portion of the reign, the whole of the political life of France is
dominated by her foreign policy, which reacts upon her military and
naval institutions, and which leads to the loss of her colonies, the
disorder of her finances, and an entire change in public feeling. With
a review of this policy the present chapter may therefore appropriately
begin.
The War of the Austrian Succession, undertaken by Cardinal Fleury
ostensibly in order to continue the traditional policy of France, of which
the aim was the overthrow of the House of Austria, continued after
the Cardinal^s death, having had no other result than to establish more
firmly upon her throne the Empress Maria Theresa. The struggle was
still carried on for several years, although the contending parties had
lost sight of its original object. The endeavours of France, which since
1745 had been concentrated upon Flanders and the Netherlands, had
led to a series of important successes : victories had been won at
Fontenoy in 1745, at Roucoux in 1746, at Lauifeldt in 1747; and
Bergen-op-Zoom was taken in 1748. France from this time forward
could accept — could even impose — peace ; and it was accordingly signed
at Aix-la-ChapeUe in 1748.
In the conclusion of this treaty, Louis XV displayed some chivalrous
inclinations. He had declared that he wished to make peace not after
the fashion of a merchant, but like a King. His plenipotentiary,
Saint-Sev^rin, was accordingly not slow in coming to an agreement with
his English colleague Lord Sandwich, and the preliminaries of peace
between France and England were signed on April 30. The establish-
ment of friendly relations with Austria, represented by Kaimitz, was
a more protracted affair, and the general peace was not concluded until
October 18 and subsequent dates. So far as France was concerned, the
conditions agreed upon in this Treaty were not in proportion either
with the sacrifices entailed by a long war, or with the successes she had
gained during the later campaigns. The King of France restored all
the fortresses captured by his forces in the Netherlands and in Italy.
In America, he regained possession of Louisburg and Cape Breton.
There was no determination of boundaries between French and English
possessions in America, the only stipulation being that matters should
be restored to their original footing, and that the frontiers should
remain as determined by the Treaty of Utrecht. But England obtained
the demolition of the coast defences of Dunkirk and the exclusion of
the Stewarts from the realm of France.
The Peace of Aix-la-Chapelle, which the imagination of Louis XV
had for a moment pictured as destined, thanks to his moderation, to be
a perpetual peace, was to be short-lived. Between France and England,
above all, there were rivalries of every description, which could not fail
332 Colonial conflicts. The Boundary Commission. [1750-5
to provoke a further conflict. The essential cause of this jealousy was
the struggle for supremacy on the sea and in the colonies — the two being
indissolubly linked together. On the one hand, England was eager to
profit ' by the advantage already gained and to prevent her rival from
reorganising her maritime power. In France, besides the discontent
created by the terms of the Treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle, there was clear
comprehension of the fact that a strong navy was necessary to protect
the merchant-service and the colonial trade ; and a strong impetus was
thus given to naval reform, while at the same time praiseworthy efforts
were made to restore order in the financial department. In 1754,
a Minister belonging to the reform party, Machault d'Amonville, an
ex-ControUer-General of finance, was placed at the head of the navy,
and began at once to plan the organisation of an imposing force. The
value of his endeavours was about to be proved by the Minorcan
expedition of 1756, when he was overthrown by a political intrigue.
The ink was scarcely dry on the Treaty of Peace, when the permanent
causes of antagonism between France and England found fresh fuel and
natural opportunities for breaking forth anew, in the daily conflicts
between the colonies of the two countries, at all their points of mutual
contact. These conflicts had been incessant from the first ; but, while
in India they were confined to struggles between rival Companies, in
the New World they were becoming more rancorous from day to day;
and, aggrava:ted as they were by the greed of the Companies or of the
settlers, on the one hand, and by the ambition of the military commanders,
on the other, they could not fail to provoke more and more serious armed
encounters and to challenge the eflbrts of both military commanders and
diplomatists on both sides. The Treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle had left
undecided the question of the boundaries of the English and French
colonies. This indecision was the more to be regretted, since, between
the possessions of the two countries stretched vast territories occupied
by the Indians — ^territories to which neither side could put forth claims
that were not highly contentious, resting on the right of discovery,
treaties with the natives, or concessions granted to particular Companies.
The early difficulties of the years 1750 to 1754 are described else-
where. The first blood having been drawn near Fort Duquesne in June,
1754, the two sides made open preparation for a sustained conflict.
However, a special commission, called the Boundary Commission, had
been appointed by the two Governments to settle these diflerences ; its
chief task being to determine the boundaries in North America and to
decide the question of ownership of the islands St Vincent, Tobago,
and St Lucia. Its work was begun in 1750 and continued until the
rupture between the two Powers in July, 1755. But, notwithstanding
the competence of the commissioners, no practical result was gained by
their deliberations ; and, in proportion as matters grew more serious in
America, it became more and more apparent that there must be direct
1754-5] Anglo-French negotiations on American boundaries. 333
negotiations between the two Governments. These were begun in July,
1754, and were continued in Paris and at Versailles by RouilM, the new
Minister of Foreign Affairs, and Lord Albemarle, British ambassador
in France, until the sudden death of the latter at the end of the year
1754. In January, 1755, they were reopened in London, between the;
Duke of Newcastle and the French ambassador, Mirepoix. Beneath
an appearance of friendliness, expressing itself by repeated presents to
Mme de Pompadour, the attitude of the English Minister, supported
by the wishes of Parliament and by the demands of the colonies, was
resolute to the last degree. The same cannot be said of the French
diplomatist. Mirepoix was severely judged by his contemporaries, even
in France, and there was for a moment some thought of reinforcing him
by a colleague. But, though he was rather a soldier than a diplomatist,
his frank and loyal — at times even ingenuous — disposition accommodating
itself with difficulty to duplicity and finesse, his task was certainly far
from easy. Not only had he to take into account the secret action of
the King and Mme de Pompadour, which was not always in agreement
with that of Rouille, but that Minister himself, though conscientious
and honourable, lacked breadth of view and initiative, and was, partly
by his own fault, partly by the force of circumstances, entirely destitute
of authority. When in February, 1755, the differences between the
claims of the two countries in the matter of the boundaries were
intensified, Rouille still had recourse to dilatory methods, sending to
Mirepoix lengthy monographs on the rights of France, and proposing
to refer to the Boundary Commission the enquiry into the disputed
points. Hereupon, as related elsewhere, Major-General Braddock was
sent to America to support the English claim by force of arms ; and, in
the following April, Admiral Boscawen sailed, with secret instructions
to intercept the French convoys bound for America. While Rouille
was still hoping to convert the English Ministry to his opinions, the
news reached London, on July 15, that Boscawen's fleet had seized the
French frigates Leys and JMde. The negotiations were at once broken
ofl; and a few days later Mirepoix was recalled. Nevertheless, many
long months were still to pass before the opening of hostilities. This
irresolution and evasion on the part of France, in a situation admitting
of only one issue, is explained by the inferiority of the French naval
forces, and by the desire on the part'of the King and Mme de Pompadour
to keep the peace at all costs. Hence the endeavours of the French
Government to shift the whole blame on to the shoulders of their
adversary by calling on all Europe to witness their own peaceful
intentions, and further, since the struggle could not continue to be
confined to the two countries, the desire to win for France as many
allies, or at least to secure the neutrality of as many Powers, as possible.
Strangely enough, in this race for alliances, England displayed the
greatest eagerness. Her first step was to secure a friendly neutrality
UH. XI.
334 Isolation of England. — Mission of Nivernais. [1755-e
on the part of Spain, which the imskilful policy of the Due de Duras
failed to win over to the side of France. In Russia, the British envoy.
Sir Charles Hanbury Williams, after overcoming countless difficulties
by means of lavish liberality, at last succeeded in concluding a defensive
treaty, which was signed in September, 1755.
But the efforts of British diplomacy were directed chiefly towards
Austria. If public opinion in England was indifferent to continental
affabs, the same could not be said of the English King, George II,
whose hereditary possessions in Hanover needed to be protected from
any sudden attack on the part of France. Austria, England's ally in
the last war, was ready and willing to help in the defence of Hanover,
but on condition that the British subsidies should be sufficient to enable
her at the same time to renew her conflict with the King of Prussia.
The conferences on this question, after being prolonged for months,
came to nothing. England thus found herself, at the end of 1755,
isolated in Europe, deprived of the help of Austria, and with but httle
hope of any change favoiu-able to her in the policy of Prussia.
During this period, the behaviour of France presented a most amazing
spectacle of irresolution. The Minister of War, d'Argenson, had at first
proposed to extend the struggle to the Continent, and to secure in
Hanover and the Netherlands compensation for the losses which Fiance
could not fail to suffer in the colonies. But this plan, after being
discountenanced by Machault, the Minister of Marine, was speedily
relinquished in consequence of the opposition of Mme de Pompadoxu",
who feared that a continental war might estrange the King from her,
and of Louis XV himself, who still hoped for a friendly understanding
with England. Secret negotiations were earned on during the closing
months of 1755, until the moment when the declarations of the English
Ministry in Parliament put an end to all hope of a friendly arrangement.
The Treaty between France and Prussia, the most important of her allies,
expired in May, 1756. During the months following on the cessation of
negotiations between England and France, Frederick had been constantly
urging his ally to resolve upon decided action ; but the Court of Versailles
had shown no alacrity in profiting by this friendly attitude. Not only
had they apparently resolved not to carry the war into Europe, but they
imagined that any haste in concluding a fresh treaty with Frederick II
would render the latter still more exacting. The Due de Nivernais,
charged with an extraordinary mission to Berlin in August, 1755, did
not enter upon his duties there until the beginning of January, 1756.
During this time, events were following one another in rapid succession,
as the outcome of several months of conferences. Frederick II, whose
principal care it was to secure himself against possible attack on the part
of Austria and Russia, signed with England on January 16, 1756, the
Treaty of Westminster, whereby the two signatory Powers obtained a
guarantee of the security of their dominions, both agreeing to take up
i'749-5e] Kawnitz" plan of an Amtro-French alliance. 335
wms against any Power which should encroach upon Germanic territory.
The Due de Nivemais aiTived at Potsdam at the very moment when this
arrangement was on the point of conclusion ; and, notwithstanding his
evident desire that the previous relations between Prussia and France
should be maintained, he could do nothing but inform his Government
of this decisive event.
This sudden change of policy on the part of Frederick II, although
it had been made known for some time past, produced at the Court of
Versailles, where up to the last moment it was regarded as incredible, a
proportionately violent impulse of vexation and wrath. In these cir-
cumstances, the negotiations between France and Austria, begun some
time previously, were carried on with increased eagerness. Austria had
now for several years shown a disposition to a rapprochement : this was
the master-thought of Kaunitz, who at that time, with the full confidence
of the Empress, directed the policy of Austria, Intellectual, eloquent to
the point of taking pleasure in hearing himself talk, and gifted with a
marvellous memory, Kaunitz had kept this design before the Council of
the Empire since the year 1749, without finding a single voice to second
him. When, at the end of 1750, he was appointed ambassador at Paris,
he employed himself in laying the foundations of his plan ; but, in face
of the protestations of a loyal adherence to the Prussian alliance, which
were at the time in vogue in France, he could do nothing beyond
establishing personal relations, which were in the end to prove of use.
When, in 1753, he became Chancellor of the Empire, he was succeeded
in Paris by Count von Starhemberg; but explicit negotiations were
delayed until the latter part of the year 1755, In view of the refusal of
England to enter into a league against Prussia, an important council
had been held at Vienna on August 19 and 21, which resulted in a
decision to lay certain proposals before the French Court. Mme de
Pompadour was mentioned by Kaunitz to Starhemberg, as likely to
prove the best intermediary with the King. Abbe de Bemis, formerly
French ambassador at Venice, who enjoyed the confidence of the Marquise,
was taken into the secret, and played thenceforth the principal part in
the whole afiair. The first meeting took place at Sevres on September 3,
when Louis XV lent a friendly ear to the Austrian proposals, which were
soon submitted, not only to Bemis, but to a Committee composed of
Rouill^, Abbe de la Ville, his chief clerk, and Machault. However, the
first negotiations, without touching the real point at issue, turned only
upon a question of reciprocal neutrality, France refusing to enter upon
any engagement hostile to Frederick II, and Austria being unwilling to
take any steps against Hanover. But, when at the end of January, 1756,
the news of the Anglo-Prussian Treaty reached Paris, the views of the
French Ministry underwent a considerable modification ; and, after fresh
conferences extending over several months, the two Powers, recognising
that the time was not yet ripe for a general offensive treaty, came to a
336 The "Reversal of Alliances" \\im
preliminary agreement, which was practically only the preface to such a
treaty, and was signed on May 1, 1756. This compact, known as the
Treaty of Versailles, comprised a convention of neutrality, a defensive
alliance, and a secret convention in five articles. Under the first of these
heads, the Empress bound herself to observe absolute neutrality in the
war between England and France, and the King of France, on his side,
promised to respect the Austrian Netherlands and other States belonging
to the Empress. By the agreement of union and defensive alliance, the
two contracting parties guaranteed to each other the security and re-
ciprocal defence of their possessions in Europe, and mutually promised
an auxiliary force of 24,000 men, in the case of either being attacked.
Finally, by the secret convention, Austria signified her willingness to
intervene, in case a Power allied to England should invade the territory
of His Most Christian Majesty ; and the King of France gave a similar
promise.
Thus was completed that diplomatic evolution which has been called
by the well-known name of the "Reversal of Alliances.'' A close exami-
nation of the conditions under which this transaction took place, shows
that, except in the case of Austria, which from the first had a clear view
of the object to be attained, circumstances had as much to do with the
new arrangement as had the enlightened and deliberate resolve of the
personages responsible for it. So far, however, as France was concerned,
the shifting of the bases of her policy must be allowed to have corre-
sponded to certain tendencies and conceptions which, though stiU not fully
realised by those who entertained them, were far from new. Louis XV
had long been painfully conscious of the comparison which was being
drawn between himself and Frederick II — owing to the contrast between
his own indolence and the activity of the Prussian sovereign, and to the
witticisms which Frederick permitted himself at his royal brother's
expense ; moreover, as a divot (notwithstanding his immoralities) Louis
was pained by his alliance with a Protestant monarch, who, though
privately a sceptic, was capable of protecting, and defending in case
of need, the interests of his religion. Conversely, in the same line of
thought everything attracted Louis XV to the Court of Vienna — " the
similarity of etiquette and of religious policy, the prestige of the Imperial
dignity, the tone, the ceremonial, nay, the very proceedings, the actual
circumlocutions, of the Empress' Court" — and many cognate con-
siderations. The cause of this shifting of the bases of French diplomacy
must be sought in the King far more than in Mme de Pompadour.
It has been alleged that, provoked by the jests and sarcasms of the King
of Prussia, she was responsible for the Austrian alliance, and that the
Empress of Austria wrote her an autograph letter conveying her thanks ;
but Maria Theresa always denied most emphatically that such a corre-
spondence had ever taken place, and it seems that the idea originated in
some confusion with the letter written by Kaxmitz to Mme de Pompadour
1755-6] Significance and reception of Treaty of Versailles. 337
in consequence of the treaty of May 1 . But, great as was the enthusiasm
for the Austrian cause displayed by the favourite after that date, and in
spite of her emphatic demand to be credited with it, the indications of
direct intervention on her part in the preceding negotiations are pro-
portionately scanty. And as for the Ministry — apart from Bemis, who
was indeed an ardent adherent of this alliance, but had no longer any
official status — ^though the defection of the King of Prussia had seriously
shaken their previous convictions, they would never have ventured to
propose, on their own initiative, so radical a change of policy.
The new Treaty contained the germ of most of the military and
diplomatic events which were to follow. This is not intended to imply
that in itself it was contrary to the interests of France and to a reasoned
policy on her part. Since the days when Richelieu had laid it down as a
fundamental maxim of French politics that the House of Austria must
be brought low, great changes had taken place on the other side of the
Rhine ; but the French Government, in seeking at the Court of Vienna
a substitute for the Prussian alliance that had come to a sudden end, had
hurried into concessions of the most dangerous order. While Austria,
admirably safeguarded by Kaunitz and Starhemberg, derived unquestion-
able advantages from the new combination, in "changing the most
important of the continental Powers from an enemy into a friend, in
freeing herself from anxiety as to her distant possessions in the Nether-
lands, and in recovering her freedom of action against the King of
Prussia" — France, on the other hand, not only made it impossible for
herself to obtain in the Netherlands any indemnification for her losses in
the colonies, but transformed an ally of yesterday, who had desired
nothing but to remain neutral, into an enemy of to-morrow. Of these
extraordinary concessions on the part of France, which the later treaties
were to aggravate to a still more remarkable degree, there can be only
two explanations : the desire to take vengeance on the King of Prussia
for his recent action, and the fear of a coalition against France of the
three continental Powers, Prussia, Austria, and Russia, But, as a matter
of fact, such a coalition, of which England had indeed dreamed for a
moment in 1755, could never be formed, so long as those three Powers
were kept apart by unconquerable jealousies.
The Treaty of May 1, 1756, was at first interpreted,, throughout
Europe, as certain to ensure peace on the Continent. After negotiations
had been suspended for several months, France and England at last
entered upon open hostilities, in Acadia (from which country the
Acadians were driven out), and in the Mediterranean, where a body of
troops commanded by Marshal Richelieu seized the island of Minorca.
War was at last declared by England and France, but the King of
Prussia was uneasy about the coalition which the Court of Vienna was
preparing against him. In signing the subsidy treaty with England, in
1755, Russia, whose sovereign was entirely devoted to the interests of
0. M. B. VI. OB, XI. 22
338 Effects of Frederick IFs iwoadon of Saxony. \yjm
Austria, had stipulated, by a note jecrefwmc, that i the -diversion in
favour of England, provided for in the treaty, could only be understood
of an attack iUpon. the possessions of the King, of Prussia. This essential
detail, which made the Anglo^jRussian; agreement thenceforth valueless to
himself, was not certainly known by Frederick until June, 1766^ when Jie
was apprised' of it byiMitchell, the new British ambassador- at his Court.
He learnt at the same time thnoughiEnyphausen, his ambassador in
Paris, that negotiations were still being carried on between the Court: of
Vienna and the Courts of Versailles and Russia, and through various
emissaries that Austria was beginning to place her army on a war
footing. It has been related elsewhere, -how Frederick addressed ito the
Empress Maria Theresa an ultimatum as to her armaments and iwairiike
intentions, and how then, without even waiting for her reply, he. invaded
Saxony and forced the Saxon troops encamped at Pima to capitulate.
This sudden intervention on the part of Frederick II was destined
to work, a radical change, in the position of jaffairs and to .open a new era
in European warfare. The immediate result was the. rupture between
France and Prussia. So soon as the news of the unexpected invasion
of Saxony was known at Versailles, the Da.uphiness Marie-Josephe,
daughter of the Elector, had burst into a torrent of complaiiiits and
demanded with tears the help of the King on behalf of her Jfamily<;^ the
lack of consideration shown by Frederick for the Count deiBroglie,
French ambassador in Saxony, and the active measiu-es of Starhemberg
did the rest. Count de Valori, French ambassador at Berlin, was recalled
by a despatch of October 19 : Knyphausen, the Prussian ambassador
in France, was not ordered to quit his post till the beginning of
November.
The second result of the invasion of Saxony was that it gave a
fresh direction to the negotiations between France and Austria. These
negotiations had been carried on throughout the summer at Paris or at
Compiegne, and. our chief source of knowledge respecting them consists
in the despatches of Starhemberg to Kaunitz. On the side of France,
Bemis continued to be the most earnest promoter of the transaction :
Mme de Pompadour showed scarcely less enthusiasm, and multiplied
her interviews with the Austrian ambassador. " She told me," writes
Starhemberg, 'Uhat she would see me in private whenever I wished;
that I must speak with her often, use perfect frankness, and, above all.
lose no time." But the ii-resolution of Rouille and the opposition of
d'Argenson had still to be reckoned with ; above all, the deep dis-
crepancy between the claims of Austria and the demands of France,
must be removed. At the end of August, 1756, and a few days before
the invasion of Saxony, France consented to include among the objects
of the agreement in- course of negotiation the recovery of Silesia out of
the hands. of Prussia, promising assistance in money as well as an auxiliary
force of 30,000 men. She further agreed not to make any separate
1756-7] Second Treaty of Versailles. 339
p?ace witii England, and un^^i^pok to maintain a considerable army to
keep watch on the Rhine. Austria, in exchange for thppe benefits, con-
t^Rt^ he];sel£ \jrith agreeing to the surrender pf the Au^trjan Netherlands
tp the In^nt.Philip, in exchange fpr his Italian possessions, apd to the
<5e^sipn to Pr^ce of certain frontier tP.wns. Kaunitz accordingly could
not r^^in from expressing his satisfaction with this arrangeiflePt> ^^'^
he wrpte thus to JVIme de J^pmpadour: "The instruc^tioi^s of Coujjit
de ^ta,^hemlberg, tbe equity and superior discernnfieilt by which I know
the King to be distinguished, ai^d your indefatigable zeal Jforl^is trjfe
interests... le^ ym,%p hppe that we shall shortly bring tp perfection thp
^eatest acbjevejnugnt for .which any European Cabipet bas ever ^^[i
respflipsible.-'
■The interyeiiti(^,jpf the King of Prussia in Saxppy changed the
immjediate purpose of tbe negotiations. Before proc:eedji:pg furtlier \v^i,th
the preparation of ,a,secppii treaty, Austria, (iemandedpf jyflpee that ithe
Ipriiipr agreemjent ,f^05ulfi,be carried put, ap|d nptabJy th^a,t,i^be auxiliary
fp^ce provided ,l:fy,tlxe,cjonventipn of JVJay 1, 1756,iSh9uJ<i )?e,seijt.at pnpe.
Tfie reply was |^t first entirply satisfactpi;y ; ]but, ,^hi^ .t^ie Cp^rt ,pf
Vienna deman4ed/j;l?,e despatch, of these troops to Morfiyia, t^,]^epch
Governn^ept recopimepded operations against the principality pf Jiiljch
or against Hanover, and Mairshal, ,de Belleisle, though ^avoural^le %p the
Austrian ,allianf;e, likewise, for pajlitary reasons, oppose;d tjie A^i^jan
project, j^s the prolipngation of these disputes made t'^e despatch
of the ifppps ipippssib^e, IVIarshal d'ijs^i-ees was sent to Vienna tp
prepare a plan,pf campaign for the year 1757. Meanwhile, idpipj^es^ic
incidents mentioned Jaelpw.— rthe struggle against the Parhm^nt, I^amiens'
attempt upon the^ife of thp King, and, the ijnportant Ministerial pl^p^es
wl;i(^ ensued in tbe cpui-se pf t^e ^inter of 1|756— 7 — ;?pntribu^^d to
retard the negotiations for the second treaty. This treaty, known, ;i;o
histoigr as the §pppnd Treaty of Versa,ill§s,.w,as at last signed on May 1,
1757, exactly a year later than the earlier agreement. It comprised a
preliminary cla,use, 32 prinfiipal and 10 sepai^ate artiqles, and prpyided
that France, pver apd abpye the %O0O ,au^liaries prescribed by t^e
defensive treaty, yas to furnish tfie Ai^stijian armies with 10,000 Germap
spjidiers, equip ;ip5,000 men , of her own, and pay l^o Apstria an annual
Spbsi^y of l^^el^e jpii]J,ion floi^ps. Frappe obtained in exchange merely
the ppssessipppf ^ejT^in fi:o}xi\^x ^9^t^^ pi the N^etherlands, MjOns, Ypres,
Fu];nes, Ostend, and Nieuport: ,th,e rest of the Apstrian ^e;l;](ierlapds ^was
assigned to.the Infant Dpn Philip, ip exq^apge for the IJ^l^an duchies,
wiuch, ,reyert,^d to the E,inpress. The two Powers furtl^er prpmised ppt
to jay dp^n the^r ^rpis uptil the Kapg of Prussia s^iould haye been fprced
to relinquish Silesia and, the county pf Glatz in JC9,yopr of ApstW'.^"^
Jklagcieburg and Halberstadt ip favour pf 3w;eden. As a ^et-pff to this,
Apsl^a, wi1;hput actijally. entering uppp an agreepient hostile \o Ilpgland,
^pierely prppiised her good pffices in preserving Minprca for France yihea
cH. XI. 22—2
340 Riisso-AvMrian alliance. [i756-7
peace should be made, and in putting an end to the stipulations bearing
on the fortifications of Dunkirk.
For several months previously, the coalition against Prussia had
gained strength from another quarter by the alliance of Russia and
Austria. In spite of the opposing influence of the Grand Chancellor,
Bestuzheff, and the Grand Duchess Catharine, who were entirely devoted
to England, and of the Grand Duke Paul, whose partisanship for the
King of Prussia amounted to fanaticism, the Tsarina Elizabeth, inspired
by an inveterate hatred of Frederick II, no sooner letimt of the Anglo-
Russian agreement of January 16, 1756, than she showed herself entirely
ready to renew the former treaties with Austria. The chief difliculty
which had to be encountered in these negotiations consisted in the
attitude of France. The truth was that Russia only displayed readiness
to undertake the war on condition of an enlargement of her dominions,
notably at the expense of Prussia and of Poland, while the traditional
policy of France, agreeing in this particular with the private policy of
Louis XV, had two objects to secure in the East : namely, to prevent
any extension of the dominions of Russia, and to watch with jealous
care over the independence of Poland. It is well known that one of the
chief objects of the private policy of Louis XV was to smooth the way
to the throne of Poland for the Prince de Conti. At last, thanks to
the modifications introduced by Austria, these contentions were happily
evaded, and the French Government, while consenting to the stationing
of Russian troops upon Polish territory, actually intervened in Poland
to quiet the national susceptibility. This difficulty settled, the
conferences were soon brought to a conclusion by the Convention of
February 2, 1757, which confirmed the compact of 1746, the two
Empresses promising not to lay down their arms until Silesia and the
coimty of Glatz had been recovered and Prussia finally enfeebled.
Meanwhile, conferences were still in progress between Prussia and
England on both diplomatic and military questions, neither side dis-
playing any great confidence. The change of Ministers in England, the
anxiety of King George to preserve the neutrality of Hanover, and the
negotiations with Vienna carried on by him up to the last moment with
this end in view, had made a sinister impression upon Frederick II.
However, at the end of the winter he had succeeded in obtaining the
appointment of the Duke of Cumberland, well known for his hatred of
France, to command the " Army of Observation " levied with his approval.
The Great Powers having now definitely chosen their sides, the
struggle was to continue for seven years, at once in Europe, in Asia
and in America ; but it would be an entire mistake to suppose that the
combinations thus formed were destined to continue unaltered. The
unforeseen course of events provoked, on more than one occasion, an
attempt to evade a promise given, or to conclude a separate treaty of
peace. The first of such attempts took place between Austria and
nsv-s] Fall of Berms. Ckoiseul Chief Minister. 341
France at the end of 1757. It has been related how after the French
successes at Hastenbeck and the capitulation of the Duke of Cumberland
at Klosterzeven, Soubise had been defeated by Frederick at Rossbach,
and how, on their part, the Austrians, after being vanquished at Prague
and victorious at Kolin, had eventually been utterly routed at Leuthen.
These disasters had produced considerable discouragement at Vienna, and
above all at Versailles. Bemis, who in his private letters to Choiseul,
the new French ambassador at Vienna, displays a very pessimistic dis-
position, enlarged upon the diificulty of adhering to all the promises
made by France, and suggested the idea of negotiations for peace. An
indignant reply on the part of Kaunitz, an eloquent piece of special
pleading from Maria Theresa, and the strenuous efforts of Starhemberg,
conquered the hesitation of the French Court, and Louis XV, in the
instructions sent to Choiseul after a council held on February 8, pro-
claimed himself a whole-hearted adherent of the alliance, and ready to
satisfy all its conditions during the forthcoming campaign — namely, the
payment of the subsidies, the upkeep of his army in Germany, and the
promise not to conclude any separate treaty of peace with the King of
Prussia.
The chivalrous response of Louis XV, though it had triumphed over
the opposition of Bemis, who was before all else a courtier, had not
in the slightest degree changed his personal convictions, which were
only still further strengthened in the course of the campaign of 1758
and tiie reverses by which it was marked. Bemis, the chief promoter
of the Austrian alliance, in proportion as the confidence displayed by
him before the outbreak of the war had been precipitate, now showed
himself discouraged, and a prey to nervous indecision. Once more he
pictured in the most life-like colours to the Court of Vienna the financial
distress of France, and proposed that the subsidies should be reduced,
and peace negotiations set on foot. When he met with resistance on
the part of Kaunitz and Maria Theresa, he finally proposed to Mme de
Pompadour that Choiseul should act as his collaborator. After much
hesitation, the King went beyond the wishes of his Minister, and sent
him, on December 13, notification of banishment. Among the principal
causes of his disgrace were the coldness which he had for some time
displayed towards Mme de Pompadour, his too evident desire to play
the part of Chief Minister, and the fact that he had more than once
exceeded the wishes and the instructions of the King.
The Due de Choiseul, who succeeded Bemis as Minister of Foreign
Affairs, after having played a distinguished part during the War of the
Austrian Succession, and shown much ability as ambassador at Rome
and at Vienna, entered the Council with the support of Mme de
Pompadour. He had originally won her favour by sacrificing to her
a relative of his own, Mme de Choiseul Romanes, who had been in
passing distinguished by Louis XV. Being raised by the King not long
342 Third Treaty of Paris. [ivsa-g
afterwarfls to the dignity of diike and of peer, he waA not slow to ac(ce](>t
thfe part of Chief Minister, foi!' which he wa^ indeed well qualified by
n'si^ii^e. At once cOiirtier and statesman, with the gift of combiriirfg
plealstire with business, he succeeded in giving a perceptible impulse? to
the wheels of government, and displayed as much'dorisistciritjy in forming
his projects as perseverance in carrying thi^rii into efFefct.
By way of marking his happy adv^t, Chdiseul threw over the
negotiations which had been catried on by Berhis, more dr less secretly,
with the object of coming to an understariding'with England and Prussia
through the medium of Spain. He affirmed th6' resolution of France to
continue hostilities, and not to separate h^r cause from that of Austria.
By the Third Treaty of Paris, whidh bore the official' date df Dedeiliber
30 aiid 31, 1758, although the signatures were not affixted until Miarch,
1759, and ratifications were not exchanged until May of the same year,
France undertook the continued maintenance of 10d,000 rfghting-men in
Germany and the payment of the Saxdh and Swedish cdi^s. Mme de
Pompadour was equally emphaltic "She is so far from aiiy thought of
peace," writes Starhemberg to Kaimitz on September 26;'1'759, "that
I have never found her so resolute and so clear-headed." The witticiSttiiS
with which Frederick II continued to assail Louis XV ail'd hte' mistress
were, again, la'rgtely responsible for the warlike incliimtidtis displayed
by the French Court. It must not however be hence concluded thdt
Chdiseul accejited without reserve the coriseque'riceb of th6 Austrian
alliance. His language and his actions froin this tiuie fctt^ai^ heat
witness to his having cdftsidered that alliance rather as a necessity imposdd
by the policy of the foregoing years, of whidl it wiii hiS business to get
rid under the best possible conditions ; they shoW, too, that he was from
the first intent upon preparing a more sttid more intimate adcdtd with
Spain — an accord which was to' be singularly assisted by the fdrce of
circumstances.
The year 1759 was marked by several importarit events: chief amdttg
these, the disasters experienced by France iii Canada (the loss of Quebec),
aiid in Germany (her defeat at Mitidett) ; at home, the fall of credit
a'nd finaritiial distress. In Spain, King Ferdinand was sUccdedfed by
Charles III, formerly King of the Two Sicilies, who was frkhkly in
syiUpalthy with France. The financial eiiibal*rassment in England, arid
the exhaustidfl of Prussia in thd vei-y midst of her victories, helped to
impart manifest siriderity to the negotiations fdr pdace now set on
fddt. Thdse ndgWtiations assumed the twofold form df prdpdsals of
mediation ma:dd by Spain to Engknd, and declarations dn^ the pari; of
Eiigland and Prussia. From the' momdiit of his accession, Charles III
had displayed the most unmistakable dfesire to take an active share in
the reestablishment of peace — less, indeed, by reason df his sympatiiy
with Frahce and resetltifient a^inst England, than because an exclusive
English maritime supremacy made him apprehensive for the Spanish
17B9-61] CJioiseul and the negotiations for peace. 343
possessions in the New World. But these tendencies, however skilfully
encouraged by Choiseul and Osuna, French Minister at Madridj were
thwarted by the opposition of Pitt.
At the same time, proposals were made by England and Prussia,
with the object of assembling a congress to treat for peace. Austria
and Russia looked upon these propositions with suspicion, thinking that
they detected in them a secret intention of sowing disunion and distrust
between themselves; these two Powers, moreover, persisted in their desire
to ding to the advantages they had gained over Frederick II. The
proposals were taken more seriously by Choiseul, who sought to find in
them an honourable means of putting an end to the maritime conflict
between France and England. While the Bailli de Froulay was sent to
Paris to act as an intermediary between Choiseul and Frederick II, a
long conference was held at the Hague, early in 1760, between Yorke,
on behalf of England, and Comte d'Affrey, representing France. Once
more the efforts of France were brought to a standstill by the un-
acceptable terms imposed by Pitt, who laid it down as a preliminary
condition that France should abandon her allies; but Choiseul had at
least succeeded in persuading Russia and Austria to accept, though very
reluctantly, the idea of a separate peace between France and England.
In spite of the obstacles encoajitered in England by the advocates
of peace, Chbii^eul had no wish to cut' hims^ off from that Power.
During the series of alternate successes and reverses which marked the
campaign of 1760 in Germany, the conferences were carried on, practically
without interruption; At Vienna, Count de Choiseul, cousin of the
Minister, was engaged in more than one stormy discussion with Eaunitz
and Maria Theresa, who refused to accept the principle of private
negotiations between France and England, and preferred the establish-
ment of a general Congress. Choiseul appeared for a moment to be
resigned to this last solution, ahd had even agreed to the despatch of
plenipotentiaries to Augsburg; but the idea of this congress was to
prov^ abortive, and the negotiations between France and England were
now to assume a more active character, after the despatch; in the spring
of 1761, of Hans Stanley to Paris and of Bussy to London, as pleni-
potentiaries of the two Powers. The bases of the negotiations had been
fixed by the memorandum issued some weeks previously by Choiseul,
which provided that each of the belligerents should retain the conquests
made by him during the war; but the first difficulty arose when it
became a question of deciding whether the conquests made by France in
Germany came under that head. Many other difficulties retarded the
negotiations: thfe quarrels about the fisheries in the New World, the
possessions of Engknd and France in the Indies, and the evacuation of
Germany by the' French troops ; further, the' opposition of Kaunitz,
and above all, the' introduction into the negotiations, at the instigation
of Choiseul, of thfe question of the Spanish grievances.
344 France and Spain. The "Family Compact." [i76o-i
For many months, in truth, while the negotiations between France
and England were being carried on, Choiseul had been holding with
Spain certain conferences which were destined to bring about, imder
the name of the " Family Compact," a diplomatic event of equal
importance with that "Reversal of Alliances" which had marked the
beginning of the war. Since his accession, the new King of Spain
had not made any eifort to conceal the signs of his sympathy with France.
Under his influence, his advisers, and especially Wall, his Minister, of
Foreign Affairs, who had been quite recently a devoted partisan of
England, had notably modified their attitude. These new tendencies
found another explanation in the discontent aroused in Spain by the
action of England — the capture of Spanish vessels, on more than one
occasion by the British squadrons, disputes about the right of fishing
in the waters of Newfoundland carried on between England and the
fishermen of Biscay and Guipuzcoa, and quarrels on the subject of the
trade in logwood, had given rise to more and more vigorous protests on
the part of the Spanish Cabinet. These protests had invariably been
met in London by an obvious determination to disregard them. Osuna,
the French Minister at Madrid, was consequently received with favour
when he proposed, in the name of his Government, a project of offensive
alliance against England (November, 1760); this project, which began, in
the mind of Choiseul, at the time of his entry into the Cabinet, was
supplemented by a close economic alliance between the two countries.
Charles III showed great readiness to accept both proposals, only de-
manding time to put his colonies in a fit state for defence and to equip a
fresh army and navy for Spain, before entering on the campaign. But it
was not long before the progress of the negotiations between France and
England completely changed the aspect of affairs. Charles III began to
fear that peace between; France and England might enable the latter
country to steal a successful march on the Spanish possessions in the
Philippines and the New World, and he soon showed himself most eager
to come to an agreement. The conditions proposed by Choiseul were
accepted practically entire, and formed the principal bases of the treaties
signed in Paris on August 15, 1761, and ratified at San Udefonso on the
25th of the same month. By the first of these treaties — known as the
"Family, Compact" — "any Power which shall become the enemy of the
one or the other of the two Crowns" was declared the enemy of both ;
the advantage of this protection was further extended to the King of
the Two Sicilies and to the Infant Don Philip, Duke of Parma. The
aid to be furnished by each of the two Powers consisted of 12 ships
of the line, 5 frigates and 24,000 men — a number which in certain
contingencies might be reduced, for Spain, to 12,000, The two Powers
were not to treat for peace "save by mutual and common agreement
and consent," and on the basis of an equitable balance of losses and
gains. In another section of the treaty the political and commercial
i76i] The Family Compact and the peace negotiations. 345
relations were defined in the most liberal spirit: the Spaniards and
Neapolitans were no longer to be accounted aliens in France, and the
French were to benefit by similar advantages, having the right to
dispose of all their property by will, donation, or any other method.
Further items were : liberty of import and export for subjects of either
Crown in the dominions of the other ; equal treatment in the matter
of trade, taxes, and navigation, and finally, union and friendly under-
standing between the representatives of the two Crowns iii their attitude
towards foreign Powers. The name of "Family Compact" was justified
by the stipulation: "no other Power than those of this House (the
House of Bourbon) shall be either invited or permitted to give adherence
to this compact." As a matter of fact, the Princes reigning at Naples
and at Parma joined this alliance shortly afterwards.
This Compact was supplemented by a secret Convention bearing the
same date (August 15, 1761), whose principal stipulations were that
Spain should undertake to declare war on May 1, 1762, if peace had
not been concluded before that date ; that France should from that time
forward incorporate the complaints of Spain with her own grievances,
and make no treaty on her own account, unless those grievances were
remedied by it; and, finally, that Portugal should be compelled, if
necessary by force, to embrace the cause of the two Powers.
The "Family Compact" thus comprised two divisions — the one
relating to affairs of war, the other to politics and trade. We shall
have occasion below to speak of the advantages and the importance of
the latter division, which, for the rest, possessed by far the most enduring
significance. The other was of far more doubtful value. Choiseul's
great mistake was that he was deceived about the military resources
of Spain, In 1761, the forces of France were too much exhausted, and
those of Spain too little inured to the discipline of war, for the union of
the two Powers to produce any essential change in the aspect of affairs.
These errors on the part of Choiseul could not but react upon affairs
both diplomatic and military. From the diplomatic point of view,
Choiseul imagiiied that, by putting forward Spain in his negotiations
with England, he would gain at the same time certain important
advantages. Not only, however, did Pitt, who was better acquainted with
Spanish affairs, refuse to foUow this lead, but even the two negotiators
themselves, Bussy and Stanley, were of opinion that the introduction of
the Spanish grievances into the Franco-British conferences, though perhaps
not amounting to a change in the substance of Pitt's ultimatum of July 25,
1761, at any rate made its terms more impracticable. We know the
chief articles of this ultimatum : France was not to aid Maria Theresa
except with the 24,000 men stipulated by the First Treaty of Versailles ;
while England might continue to assist the King of Prussia with all
the resources at her disposal; the fortifications of Dunkirk were to be
destroyed; and England was to keep all the colonies in her possession
346 Last phase of the War-Peace of Hubertusburg. [i76i-3
at the date of the signing of the Treaty. Choiseul replied to this
ultimatum by the "vltimatissimum" of September 3, in which he accepted
the principle of the demolition of the fortifications of Dunkirk, but
demanded for France the unchallenged possession of the isla:nds of
St Pierre and Miquelon, and claimed satisfaction for the Spaniiiih
grievances. A deadlock had now been reached, and thie commissioners
were recalled.
In England^ the fall of Pitt was hastened as much by his own
intractability, his disagreements with his colleagues, particularly with
Newcastle and Lord Bute, and the lack of sympathy displayed towards
him by the new King, as by the rupture of the negdtiations with FraiKife;
but his disappearance from the Cabinet of St James' caused no essential
modification in its policy. The cessation of the conferences with France
was followed almost immediately by the rupture of relations with Sf)ain,
which had been growing more and more strained during the* pkst months;
at the end of December, 1761, the ambassadors were recalled, and war
was declared by England on January 2, 1762.
This last phase of the War, which in the opinion of Choiseul and
Charles III must decide the question of naval and colonial supremacy
between England on the one hand and France and Spain on the other,
was of short duration. The rapid opening of hostilities against Spain,
recommended by Pitt, had the result which he had foreseen. The
campaign of 1762- entailed upon France the loss of such possessions
as she still had in the West Indies, the capture of Martinique and the
islands of Grenada and St Vincent, while Spaiti lost Havana and the
Philippines. Meanwhile, on the Continent, the death of Elizabeth and
the accession of the Tsar Peter III to the throne of Russia marked a
change of policy on the part of that' country in favour of Prussia; and
after Peter's death, at the end of a few months, the new Tsarina,
Catharine II, showed herself dispiosed to remain neutral. The weariness
and= exhaustion of the" belligerents led to a resumpltion of the con-
ferences^ and this time a decision was soon reached.
In accordance with the principle laid down by Choiseul, the nego-
tiations were carried on by each country separately — Prussia being
riepresented by Hertzberg, Austria by Frisch and Collenbach, Augustus III
by^ Briihl^-and the result was the Treaty of Hubertusburg, signed on
February 15^ 1763. This Treaty confirmed the status quo before the
War, Frederick II retaining Silesia, and promising his voice in support
of the election of Joseph, the eldest son of Maria Theresa, as King of
the Romans, while the Elector of Saxony regained possession of all his
dominions. Between France and England, negotiations were resumed
after the despatch of the Due de Nivemais to London and of the
Duke of Bedford to Paris. The preliminaries were signed at Fontaine-
bleau on November 3, 1762, and confirmed by the Treaty of Paris on
February 10, 1763. By this Treaty France ceded to England the
1753-7] Treaty of Paris.— The Pariement. 347
whole of Canada, and only retainled, in the West Indies the island of
St Lucia, in Senegal the island of Goree, and in India the five towns of
Mahe, Pondicherty, Chandemagdrie, Karikal, and Yanaon ; she further
restored Minorca, aid ceded Loiiirfana; to Spain in exchange for Florida,
which the latter Power nialde over to England.
This Treaty, which secured the maritime supremacy' of Engla,nd and
the military prestige of Prussia, was called in Prance " the dis^aceful
peace." It did in fact signify for JVaiice the loss of her colonial empire,
the annihilation of her navy and of the ruin of her finances; and the
discontent created among all classes by so unparalleled a series of reverses
w4s tb prbve a source of great trouble in the' future. Before reviewing the
efforts made by Choiseul, in the second period of his Miriistryi to repair
the§e disasters, we may briefly recall the printipal events which' had
marked the domestic history of the country' durinjg the previous years.
Among the institutions which played a prominent part in the
intemail history of France in the eighteenth centiiry, the ParUntent
holds the foremost place. At the very beginning of the reign of
Lduis XV, that body, by setting aside the will of the late King, had
striven tO take vengeance for the state of dependence in which it had
beew kept by Louis XIV. In the absence of the States General, which
had not been convoked since 1614, the Parkttient aspired to play a
political part, and to transform its right of remonstrance into a real
control over the proceedings of the royal power. The disputes constantly
arising upon the subject of the Jansehists, who had become a political
coterie, had furnished the Parlement with frequeht opportunities of
intervention. On several occasions its members had refused to sit^ and
had been sent into exile: the banishment to PbiitbiSe'in 1753 lasted for
upwards of fifteen months. In 1755 it was engaged in a vigorous dispute
with the Archbishop of Paris on the subject Of the Jansenists and of the
administration of the' Sacraments; In 1756, the Parldment had to meet
in the presence of the King, in order to be forced to adopt the edicts for
extraordinary taxes issued at the beginning of the War; at the end of
the yfear, resort was had to the same proi^eding, and on this occasion
several edicts were read, modifying the constitution of the Parlement
and reducitig its powers.
During the course of this struggle, on January S, 1757, a fanatic,
Jean-Fran9ois Damieris, who had formerly been a domestic servant,
stabbed the King with a knife as he was entering his carriage* The
wound was slight; but profound emotion was excited at the Court.
When the assassin was tried by the Parlement, a strange light was
thrown upon the sentiments produced in the lower classes of society
by their misei'y, and by the political and religious discussions of the
time. The' attempt of Damiens also had unforeseen consequences in
another sphere of public life. In the first stress of his emotion, the
348 Eccpulsion of the Jesuits from France. [1757-73
King had refused for several days to see Mme de Pompadour. From
this it had been generally inferred that the favourite had fallen into
lasting disgrace; and her return to favour resulted in the fall, at the
very moment when the Seven Years' War was about to begin, of the two
Ministers who had shown themselves most strenuously opposed to her
influence, but who, on the other hand, were the most capable of ensuring
satisfactory preparations fpr the War — d'Argenson and Machault.
The combined influence of the ill-feeling of the Parlement and the
Jansenists, and of the opinions of the Philosophers, was responsible for
the movement against the Jesuits, which began in France some years
later, and resulted in the dissolution of their body. The animosity
aroused by their ascendancy in the principal Catholic Courts of Europe,
and by their interference in politics, which in Portugal brought about
their expulsion, is described in another chapter of this volume. In France,
the looked-for opportunity arose with the action brought by several
merchants against Pere Lavalette. This Jesuit had founded in Martinique
a business house,, which had at flrst prospered, but eventually failed, in-
consequence of the capture by the English of a number of vessels laden
with cargo belonging to the concern. Some merchants of Marseilles,
Lavalette's creditors, had brought a suit against the whole Order, as
being responsible for the debts of its members. The Jesuits refused
payment, on the ground that they had excluded Pere Lavalette from
their Order, and further invoked the principles of their constitution.
They lost their case before the Consular tribunal of Marseilles, and
before the Parlement of Paris ; but the latter body, when an appeal " on
the ground of abuse " was entered by the Attorney-General, undertook
to examine the constitution of the Society. The result was that the
King's subjects were forbidden to join it, and the Jesuits themselves
interdicted from teaching. Meanwhile, several provincial ParUments,
notably those of Rouen and Rennes, gave decisioiis against the Order.
Under the pressure of public opinion and of the Philosophers, and
following the advice of Choiseul, Louis XV disregarded the opposition
of the Dauphin, a number of Bishops and the divot party, and issued
at last, in November, 1764, an edict enacting that " the Society should
no longer exist in France ; that its members should only be allowed to
live in private in the King's dominions." Nine years later, in 1773, the
abolition of the Society of Jesus was pronounced by Pope Clement XIV.
While Choiseul was thus satisfying the principles of the Philosophers
and the ambitions of the Parlements, he was also engaged upon the
reform of the army and of the navy, undertaking himself, from 1761 to
1766, the entire responsibility of those two departments, and leaving
in the meantime the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to his cousin, the
Due de Choiseul-Praslin. In 1766, he again resumed the conduct of
foreign affairs and entrusted his cousin with the management of the
navy ; but, as a matter of fact, it was at any given moment his opinion
1763-vo] ChoiseuVs general and foreign policy. 349
and his behaviour that inspired and dominated the entire policy of the
Cabinet. With regard to the army, a preparatory military school was
established at La Fleche to supplement the military school at Paris ; the
guns were thenceforth manufactured in the state factories ; and, in 1765,
the new system introduced by Gribeauval established the artillery corps —
thenceforth distinct from the engineer corps — consisting of the first
seven artillery regiments. As to the navy, the three arsenals already
existing were supplemented by two more — Marseilles for galleys, and
Lorient ; by means of voluntary contributions, the fleet was increased by
a certain number of vessels, and important works were set on foot at
Brest. The Naval Academy was reorganised, and a new impetus given
to scientific studies. But the indefatigable activity of Choiseul dis-
played itself above all in the department of politics and diplomacy,
during the seven years (1763-70) which formed the lattei' portion of his
Ministry.
During the last period of his career, the foreign policy of Choiseul
displayed two chief tendencies : to annul the effects of the Treaty of
Paris and to intervene in the Eastern question in favour of the old allies
of France concerned in it — Sweden, Poland, and Turkey. Never had the
qualities and defects of his character been more clearly marked than in
his application of this policy. Of quick and resourceful intelligence,
far-seeing at times to the point of divination, swift to conceive schemes
which sometimes evinced a very real force, when it came to execution
he was invariably inconsequent, thoughtless, and blundering, thus in a
measure justifying the quip attributed to Louis XV; "he thinks himself
a great Minister, and has nothing in his mind but a little phosphorus."
These defects could not fail to have a sinister influence on his schemes.
But he was in any case, from his very position as Chief Minister of such
a King as Louis XV, foredoomed to disaster. All his efibrts against
England and in the East ended in war — a result which he foresaw and,
far from dreading, almost welcomed; but Louis XV, especially in his
later days, was incapable of following Choiseul in this redoubtable
enterprise, and the foreign policy of the Minister inevitably ended in
his downfall. That downfall was for him well-timed, in that his plans
scarcely had to endure the test of being put into practice: it was
ill-timed, \a so far as it caused the results obtained to appear dispropor-
tionate to his efforts. Hence the different judgments passed by recent
historians upon Choiseul — some honestly admiring his policy, and others
seeing in him only a fanatic and a blunderer.
With regard, in the first instance, to his policy against England, he
has been accused of failing to grasp the importance of the losses entailed
by the Treaty of Paris, The assertion has been put into his mouth,
that he had done the English a good turn by obliging them to distribute
their strength all over the world, and he has been reproached for speaking
disdainfully of the loss of Canada. His words were doubtless nothing
OH, XI.
360 Results of ClioismVs policy in fjfie Mediterranean. [1755-90
more than the capricious utterance of a statesman trying to put a
good j^ce on a Jjad hiusiness; and his failure to, appreqiate^the'value of
Qanaida was ^hWR<i at that time by the English thepopelyes. In any
case, he had projects of reorganising the .paval and colo^nial empire
of fFrance — projects summed up in his dream of spppemacy in Mie
two MediterraneaflSrn-that of the old Continent, apd .jthe American
Mediterranean, (the Gulf of Mexico and (the West j Indian .s^fis).
France owed to Chpigeul the acqjuisition ^pf Cpjf^ica.in ;the;.Ty;?stprn
Mediterranean, vi^ch was^figntrolled.by the English forts of Gibraltar
^nd Pprt Mahon. In 1755, a patriot, Paoli, raised , the iTybple island
against its Genoe?e roasters, who, as is related .^Ig^wliere, were in ,1756
forpe^ ,to appeal fpr help .to the French trppps occupying the principal
forts on the coast. In 17,68, Chplse^l induced Qfsnpa to sejl , the island
to France. Equilibrium was 1;hius restored in t^e,^f^t§rQ Mpditprranean,
and Toulon and the coast of Provence were protected by advanced ppsts
of .first-class strength. The English Crpvernment,; preoccupied by their
disputes with the American qolpnists, real^^gd top late, the jiapprtance
of the proceedings, wh^, in response to the protests of .I^fiioli, the whole
of ^ the patriot party indirectly came to their aid. The iPapJiisM defeated
jtlpie first troops sent by Chpiseul, but in Mfty, 1769, Covwt de; Vaux,
thai^ks to his superior nuip;i,bers,,>rpn the decisive victory of P,ontenuov,p.
These prpceedi^gs bred in, the Cprsicans a bitter resentment against
France, whjle the,i^ngligh ohafedat their Ipst opportqi^ty. Thmsit came
1tp pass thjit the isl,gjjd once more nsyfllted, jjnder the leadership of Paoli
(1790), and the English established) there, a naval fort threatening that
of Toulon, until jn course of time the ascendancy pf>IlJappleon Bonaparte
transformed ;t;he Corsicans into French patriots.
Perhaps an expjedition ,^ent by Qhoiseul against ,Tuflis and ;Biserta —
an expedfj[3,op w^ch^was, moreover, premature apd prpdjictive ,pf no
las|;i,ng resultsrT^need,npt be regarded as more than an incident in the
IflPgrstanding quarrel between , the inhabitgjtts , pf flarbary and the
Europeans. Bint, ,pn 1;he other, hand, Chpiseul in 1769 encouraged the
Ffepcji, i^dyftflce into Egjrpt,, which was a statipn of .firstrclass importance
in tljie .eastern Mediterranean, in contact with the seaports of the Levant,
where the inflnenpe pf France predominated, and at the same time
affprding an approach , to India. Chpiseul anticipated Bpoa^afte by
cherishing the , thovght of Egypt as a French ppssessipn.
But, in the direction . pf the /American ,Mediterranean, Choiseul ihad
a yet more exalted aim. Ever since the Bourbon dynasty had placed
Phi.]|i|p,V upon the throne of, Spain, .France, had dreamed of opening to
French products that mwket, hitherto jealously barred to European im-
portation. This traditional policy of France, interrupted by the Regent's
anti-3panish policy, and by the friendly relations between , Spain and
England signalised , by the commercial treaty of 1750, reappeared when
France and 3p^in came to an agreement, inspired by a common dread of
1758-67] ChoiseuVs commercial schemes in the New World. 351
the flourishing navy of England, Since 1758, Choiseul had employed on
the drafting of an economici alliance a functionary, established in Spain by
the French since the reign i of Philip V-^the Agent-General of commerce
and naval affairs, who combined the functions of a commercial attach^
with those of a secret d^lomafcic agent, and whose part it was to, guide
and — when necessary — to; take tlie^ place of the ambassador, in jnatters of
trade. In 1758, this popt was occupied by Abbe Beliaiidi, "the channel
of communication between M. de Choiseul and M. d'Aranda." He set
on foot a great commercial enquiry in Spain, from 1758 to .1763,
concerned principally with Cadiz, the general market in. the West i Indian
trade. The Family Compact of 1761 was, in certain ©f .its bearings, an
economic aljiiance. In 1763, after the War, Choiseul 4eKeloped( his i views
as to the method pf turning that allianpe^to account. " I should like,"
he wrote to Louis XV, " all other alliances i to be Siubordinated to this
union." The oVyect of France was to obtain from Charles III ithe
opening of the Spanish Indies to her industrial products, and so to .assist
the economic jdevelopment of Spain as to procure for hei^self la prQ£iper«)Us
ally. From 1763 to 1766, negotiations for a commercial, agreement were
carried on; in 1765, Charles III reduced the export duties .an-jSpanish
prpducts imported .in,to America, which were principally French goods
imported under the protection of Spain: these goodsji becoming con-
sequently cheaper, competed in America with the English contvaband
merchandise brought from Jamaica. ;FinallyT^most important lOf.^Jl —
Choiseul hoped to form out of all that remained of the French empijce
in Amjericg, — St Dominique, Martinique and Guiana — a colonial domain
in the Gulf of Mexico and the West Indian seas. This domain was,
under the protection of Spanish America, to ,make French influence
supreme in the American Mediterranean and provide a means of taking
ft^ay the trade of British America from the south ; it was, further, to serve
as a market |or French products destined for Spanish America, and WQuld
even make possible} in case of .need,, an attack upon Brazil, or the
blocking of the road by which ,EngUsh couitraband goods came from
British Guiana to Peru. With this end jn.yjew, Choiseul took in hand
the colonisation of F^renph Gniana; his attempt, however, was a dead
failure, not through his own fault, but through tl^at of d'Estaing, ,to
whom he had entrusted the management of the spheme: and even then
he still had the hope of .obtaining from Spain a sitation in the Philippines,
whence French commodities could be carried to the Pacific coast of
Spanish America.
Such schemes could not fail to produce, disquiet in Englandj on whom,
however, Choiseul was eager to inflict a more direct injury. He jiudged,
quite correctly, that the. loss of Canada by France would lead to a rising
in British America, now that they had no further need of the mother
country as a point of resistance to the Canadians. So early as 1767,
Choiseul foresaw this insurrection of the British settlers, and sent a secret
OH. XI,
352 Choiseul and the Eastern question. [i763-7b
agent, Kalb, to study the situation. At first Kalb did not recognise any
signs of a separatist movement, but presently he changed his opinion
and urged Choiseul to take active steps. But that Minister was no
longer able to spare attention for America, and Kalb's reports left
him tmmoved. Choiseul, whose fall in 1770 was due to a "plan of
campaign against England," showed a prophetic belief in the inevitable
rivalry to come between the revolted Americans and the English.
Though, as has been seen, at times guilty of inconsequence or of
blindness, in the question of the American Mediterranean he neverthe-
less displayed amazing foresight, anticipating the ephemeral project of
Napoleon I, in 1803, of constituting a French empire in America with
the help of Louisiana and St Dominique— which project, it may be,
in turn influenced Napoleon Ill's scheme of a French empire in Mexico.
We are now in a position to appreciate Talleyrand's description of
Choiseul as " one of the most prophetically-minded men of our genera-
tion.'' It will also be seen that Pitt was right, when he said, in 1763,
that England, by making peace with France, was offering her the oppor-
timity of reconstituting her navy and her colonies. This reconstitution
was the work of Choiseul. But, as Captain Mahan has said, "In the
naval development of a State, the regular action of a moneyed class,
preponderant in the nation and free to act, is of more importance than
the initiative of a despotic and temporary power." Choiseul, so long
as Louis XV left the government in his hands, had a certain influence
on the reconstitution of the navy and the colonies of France: but
Louis XV deprived him of this power, and from that moment the plans
of Choiseul were destined to fall into oblivion.
The Eastern question was another of Choiseul's chief preoccupations.
In the eighteenth century, France had three allies in eastern Europe —
Sweden, Poland, and Turkey, These three States had been falling into
decadence since the end of the seventeenth century, while, in their place,
Prussia, Austria, and Russia were coming into prominence. Thus had
sprung up the idea of a partition of each of the three declining Powers
by their three rivals; and, in the time of Choiseul, Sweden was
threatened with partition by Prussia, Russia, and Denmark, Poland
by Prussia, Russia, and Austria, and Turkey by Russia and Austria.
However, Prussia, Austria, and Russia were themselves divided by
mutual jealousy and apprehension. Frederick II of Prussia, since
the Seven Years' War, had lived in mortal fear of the colossal and
barbarous power of Russia, declaring her to be a "deadly neighbour
and a peril to the whole of Europe." He would fain have had the support
of Austria, France, and England, in keeping in check Catharine II, to
whom he preached the duty of moderation in her appetite for conquests.
Catharine, on her side, declared to Potemkin that the Prussian alliance
was "the most ignominious and intolerable thing in the whole world," and
sought rather to make an ally of Austria. That Power, whichj now that
Silesia was finally lost to it, nursed a permanent grudge against Prussia,
1762-3] The "King's Secret" and Eastern question-Poland. 353
had another ground for uneasiness in what has been called " the Greek
project " of Catharine II — her desire, that is, of reuniting the Orthodox
party in Russia with their kinsmen in the Balkan peninsula, and of
establishing the Christian faith in Constantinople, by introducing there
the supremacy of Russia. If Prussia, Austria, and Russia were divided,
Sweden, Poland, and Turkey, which ought to have joined forces in their
common danger, were similarly separated by a traditional hostility, and
England, instead of supporting Turkey, was disposed to sacrifice that
Power to Russian ambition. But France always took up the cause of
the three Powers thus menaced. Though she had lost much of her
authority in Europe by her reverses in the Seven Years' War, Choiseul
reckoned on the help of his ally, Austria, against Russia and Prussia —
a calculation which, in fact, lay at the root of his Eastern policy. But,
unhappily, this was, like much of the official policy of France, not in
accordance with the secret policy of the King. Louis XV distrusted
Austria equally with Prussia and Russia, and the "King's Secret"
consequently resisted any extension of Austrian influence in Turkey and
above all in Poland. It cannot be denied that events were to prove
the farsightedness of the "King's Secret" with regard to Austria, and
the mistake of Choiseul on the same head. In any case, the opposition
between the official diplomats and the secret agents of France deprived
her Eastern policy of all definiteness and all efficacy.
The real danger for Sweden, Poland, and Turkey lay not so much in
the sinister designs of their neighbours and the powerlessness of France
as in the shortcomings of their internal organisation. They were feuded
States — States, that is, without unity, without a centralised government,
without any financial or military organisation — opposed to such modern
States as Prussia and Austria were, and Russia was trying to be. At the
end of the Seven Years' War, Russia, Prussia, and Austria, having gained
no new territory in that War, fell to dreaming of compensation. The
year 1762 saw the death of the King Augustus III of Poland, Elector
of Saxony ; and the election of a new King furnished an excellent
pretext for foreign intervention. Consequently, Peter III of Russia and
Frederick II of Prussia undertook, by a secret treaty, to maintain the
Constitution of Poland — in other words, to perpetuate anarchy in that
country. From 1763 onwards, in view of the defects of her Constitution,
the situation of Poland became extremely grave. As for Turkey, she
was then what she is now. The Mussulman Turk pitched his camp in
the midst of infidel Slavs and Hellenes, whom he had neither absorbed
nor converted ; he did not govern them, for the Sultan despot, torpid in
his seraglio, left the Pachas to act for him, and they had no other ad-
ministrative system than that of "devouring the country." The Sultan's
Christian subjects, too, were waking little by little to covet independencCj
and were no longer indifferent to the propaganda issued by Russia in
favour of the project of rousing the Greeks to revolt.
O. M. H. VI. CH. XI. 23
354 ChoiseuVs Polish policy. [i762-8
Given the position of Sweden, Poland, and Turkey, what steps did
Choiseul think fit to take? To save Sweden, he lectured the heir
presumptive to the throne, Prince Gustavus, the son of King Adolphus
Frederick, upon the dangers threatening his country. He thought
that Turkey was strong enough in military force to save herself, and
even to help in safeguarding Poland. Poland it was, above all, that
Choiseul was planning to protect, and she was in truth the most
severely menaced of the three. The first transaction demanding attention
was the election of the successor of Augustus III. The candidate
put forward by Prussia and Russia was Stanislaus Poniatowski, by birth
a Polish noble, who was supported by the powerful family of the
Czartoryskis, and a favourite of Catharine II. Choiseul and Austria had
another candidate — Prince Xavier of Saxony, brother of the Dauphiness
of France; and Choiseul reckoned on obtaining the intervention of
Turkey in favour of his nominee. But Austria had no other motive
in upholding the claims of a Saxon in Poland than that of gaining
the vote of the Elector of Saxony in the election of Joseph II as
King of the Romans; and, that election once made, Austria had no
further interest in the question. Turkey declined to act, because
Prussia and Russia assured her that the only desideratum was liberty
in elections to the throne of Poland, and that to uphold Poniatowski
was simply to support a true Pole. Finally, Xavier of Saxony offended
the Primate of Poland, Lubienski, whose influence was very great.
Choiseul, thus finding himself alone against Prussia and Russia, dared
not state precisely the attitude of France. Some Russian troops
entered Poland, and Stanislaus Poniatowski wab elected (September,
1764). Choiseul's endeavour was now to screen Stanislaus from Russian
influence, to the advantage of Austria and Prance. With this end in
view, Choiseul sketched a plan of marriage between Stanislaus and an
Archduchess of Austria; but the plan came to nothing, through the
machinations of the " King's Secret "" against Austria.
From 1766 onwards, Stanislaus and the Czartoryskis endeavoured to
reform the Polish Constitution ; while an opposition faction, formed by
the adherents of Xavier of Saxony, but claiming the title of " national
party," demanded the preservation of the old Constitution in every
point. Matters were, however, upon the point of being arranged in the
Diet by a reconciliation between the Czartoryskis and the national party,
when the Russian ambassador, Repnin, brought the Russian soldiery to
bear upon the Diet, and obliged it to repeal the laws against Dissidents,
which pressed hard on the Greek Catholics, and restored the liberum veto
in its unrestricted form (1768). By way of revenge, the nobles who were
hostile to the Dissidents and to the Czartoryskis formed the Confederation
of Bar. Choiseul espoused the cause of the Confederates; but public
opinion in France, following the Philosophers, in whose eyes Catharine II
appeared as the patroness of religious tolerance in Poland, pronounced
1768-70] Russian fleet in Greek waters-Fall of Choiseul. 355
against them. The support of Choiseul was given indirectly, by sending
to the Confederates certain officers, such as Dumouriez and Choisy, whose
record as adventurers would justify him in disowning them, in case of
need, and by gifts of money and ammunition. But the Russian troops
penetrated further and further into Polish territory, and under the
pretext of helping the Dissidents drove out the Confederates of Bar.
Choiseul now urged Austria to give direct support to the Confederates,
and since the Russian troops, in pursuing their prey, violated Turkish
territory, the French ambassador in Constantinople, de Vergennes, per-
suaded the Sultan Mustafa to declare war against Russia (1768).
Upon this occasion also, the " King's Secret " baffled the effort made
by Choiseul to rouse Austria to arms, and the war dragged on in another
quarter between Turks and Russians, while in Poland the state of anarchy
increased. Frederick II and Maria Theresa posted troops to keep a look-
out on the Polish frontier, and these troops, in particular the Austrians,
encroached little by little upon the Polish territory. Prussia and
Austria were uneasy at Catharine's seizure of Poland, and Frederick II
wished to divert her attention to Sweden; in certain interviews with
Joseph II of Austria at Neisse and Neustadt, he sought to devise ways of
keeping Russia in check. And in the midst of all these complications and
intrigues, the idea already formulated in the seventeenth and the first half
of the eighteenth century was taking shape — the idea of a partition of
Poland which should satisfy the conflicting desires of her neighbours.
At this moment Catharine II, instigated by her favourite, Gregori
Orloff, who was himself inspired by the Greek Papazoglu, tried to carry
out her " Greek project " by sending into the Archipelago, by way of
the Mediterranean, a Russian fleet to rouse the Hellenes to revolt.
England favom-ed this scheme, in order to play a trick upon France
and her ally, Turkey ; and it was an English sailor, Elphinston, who
piloted the first Russian fleet that ever sailed the waters of the Levant.
The Turkish fleet was burnt at Tchesme (in August, 1770), and the
Straits and Constantinople were only saved by the menaces of Baron
de Tott, an tidventurer sent by Choiseul to the Sultan to play the
same part in Turkey as that played- by Dumouriez, Choisy, and their
fellows, in Poland. It was these advantages gained by Russia over the
Turks which determined Austria and Prussia to call upon the Tsarina to
check her advance on Constantinople, and to oflter her indemnification in
Poland. Before these consequences of the Russian cruise manifested them-
selves, France saw the fall of Choiseul from power, in December, 1770.
The fall of Choiseul was brought about partly by his foreign policy •
his naval and colonial policy was driving him into a war with England,
and his attitude in the Eastern question was also involving him in a war
with England and Russia. These adventurous schemes " disturbed the
senile egoism of Louis XV." The Minister was, moreover, the victim of
his domestic policy — in other words, of his concessions to the Parlements,
CH. XI. 23—2
356 Causes of the fall of Clioiseul. [ives-vo
his lack of foresight in financial questions, and his quarrel with the
devot party at Court, together with the ill-will of the new favouritcj
Mme Du Barry.
The eternal conflict between the Crown and the Parlements was
renewed in 1763-4, when the Government, in spite of the fact that peace
had been concluded, sought to continue the taxes levied on account of
the Seven Years' War. In Britanny, this conflict resulted in a coalition
between the Estates of the province and the Pa/rlement of Rennes, led by
its Attorney-General, La Chalotais, against the Due d'Aiguillon, the
royal Governor of Britanny, whom the Parlement of Rennes, followed by
that of Paris, undertook to subject to solemn censure. Thus the Pa/rh-
ments were setting on foot proceedings against a representative of the
royal authority, while resisting the financial policy of the Crown. But
the King could not allow himself to be set at defiance; and, moreover, the
state coffers were empty. Choiseul had none of the qualities of an expert
financier : he was too lofty a personage to interest himself in questions of
statistics, and the successive Controllers -general whom he had chosen,
Bertin and L'Averdy, had not succeeded in supplying the deficiencies of
the Treasury. At any price, then, in 1769-70, the opposition of the
Parlements to the authority and to the fiscal demands of the Crown must
be overcome — and this had, in fact, been the cry of Maupeou, Chancellor
since 1768, and Terray, appointed Controller-general in 1769. But
Choiseul shrank from crushing the Parlements, because they had the
support of public opinion, which it was ever his care to please ; and he
forbore to give serious consideration to the attitude of Maupeou and
Terray, because he believed himself at that juncture to be all-powerful.
The death of the Dauphin had indeed freed him from his most powerftil
enemy, and that of Mme de Pompadour from a compromising patronage,
and he had succeeded in marrying the new Dauphin, the heir presumptive,
whose reign could not be long delayed, to Marie-Antoinette of Austria.
But Maupeou and Terray had on their side the divot party, lately headed
by the deceased Dauphin, and now under the leadership of the Due de
La Vauguyon and Nicolay, Bishop of Verdun, and they could not forgive
Choiseul for the fall of the Jesuits. This coalition was further strength-
ened by Mme Du Barry, whom Choiseul had been so ill-advised as to
hold in contempt ; not that she was contemptible — Mme de Pompadour,
his protectress, had scarcely been more powerful — but because the Minister
believed Louis XV's attachment for her to be nothing more than a fleeting
caprice. The Due d'Aiguillon and Marshal Richelieu instructed Mme
Du Barry to slander Choiseul in the King's hearing. The quarrel with
the Parlements furnished the coalition with the opportunity of over-
throwing that Minister. Between June and December, 1770, Maupeou
insisted on forcing the King's will upon the Parlements, until that of
Paris suspended its functions. The strike was brought to an end on
December 20 by a royal injunction that the Parlement should resume
its duties; and on December 24 Choiseul was dismissed.
1770-2] The " Triumvirate." — First Partition of Poland. 357
His fall came none too soon for his reputation. The ingenuous con-
fidence of his foreign policy with regard to Austria, which he regarded
in the light of an instrument for safeguarding Poland, marked him out
for speedy disaster, while at home his compliance towards the Parlements
and his laxity in financial matters could not long be allowed to continue.
His fall relieved him of responsibility for the difficulties bequeathed
by him to his successors, and he carried with him into retirement the
reputation of a great statesman. That reputation was, indeed, in some
measure exaggerated ; for in spite of his magnificent designs in certain
matters of foreign policy, he had often proved himself trifling, blundering,
indiscreet ; while at home, by the expulsion of the Jesuits, the upholders
of absolute royalty, by the impunity accorded to the Parlements when
they attacked that same royalty, and by his heedlessness in finance, he
had contributed not a little towards the overthrow of that system of
absolute monarchy of which he was, nevertheless, a partisan.
The new Minister of Foreign Affairs was the Due d'Aiguillon, who,
with Maupeou at the head of judicial affairs and Terray in charge of
finance, formed the Ministry called by their contemporaries the Trium-
virate. Public opinion was against them from the first, because the will
of an unpopular King and his infamous favourite had put them in the
place of the people's hero ; and, inheriting difficulties which Choiseul
himself would unquestionably have failed to solve, they were to find
disasters at home and abroad, which he had rendered inevitable, laid to
their account.
It was not in the power of d'Aiguillon to save Poland, who lost her
frontier provinces to Prussia, Austria, and Russia, after their coalition
in 1772. From 1770 to 1772, Cathaxine II, under pressure from
Prussia and Austria, slackened in her hostility towards the Turks, and
then granted them a truce. Prince Henry of Prussia familiarised the
mind of Frederick II with the idea of a partition of Poland, and, in
1771, was sent by his brother to enforce this project upon Catharine II,
who would have preferred to retain the monopoly of influence in Poland
and to conquer Turkey, but dared not break with Prussia and Austria,
now once more united. Austrian and Prussian troops now followed the
example set by the Russians, and penetrated into Polish territory.
Austria, however, still hesitated : she would have preferred, instead of
being allotted a fragment of Poland, to deprive France of Alsace and
Lorraine, or to recover Silesia from Frederick II, or to receive part of
Turkey. But Frederick II forced her to adopt his views by inspiring her
with a fear of Russia, exactly as he forced Russia to adopt them by making
her afraid of Austria; and, after he had signed with Catharine II, on
February 10, 1772, the First Treaty for the Partition of Poland, Austria,
eight days later, signified her adherence to the treaty. France could not
possibly oppose the division, abandoned as she was by her ally, Austria,
and j ealously watched by England. The ' ' King's Secret," farsighted in its
368 France and the Swedish monarchical revolution. [i770-4
distrust of Austria, was powerless to find any other solution, and
Louis XV, a prey to senile weakness, let his cherished policy fall to
pieces. D'Aiguillon, then, was not responsible for the ruin of Poland.
Nor would the saying, attributed without probability to Louis XV, that
" if Choiseul had been there, the partition would never have taken place,"
have been just in the mouth of a King who had excellent opportunities
for a fair assignment of the responsibilities in question.
During the same period, Sweden escaped the fate of Poland. The
Prince Royal of Sweden, Gustavus, summoned by Choiseul to France to
receive his advice, had arrived there at the end of 1770, after the fall of
the Minister. But the Due de La VriUiere, who was taking the place of
d'Aiguillon till the latter should arrive, and the officials of the Foreign
Office, did what Choiseul would have done. Gustavus returned to
Sweden in 1771, with four million francs and Vergennes as his mentor.
When on his return he took up his duties as King, he received from
d'Aiguillon and Louis XV the same support as Choiseul had given him ;
and he prepared a coup cTetat against the Diet. Though England sent
to the Diet a copy of a letter in which Gustavus disclosed his plan to
Louis XV, the young King was too quick for the Senate, and the
Constitution of 1772, which reestablished absolutism at the expense of
the nobility, was followed, in 1773, by the renewal of the alliance
between Sweden and France. The partition of Poland and the renewal
of war with Turkey prevented Catharine II from putting any obstacle
in his way. In this affair d'Aiguillon had shown himself a worthy suc-
cessor of Choiseul : it is true that he was helped by Sweden herself, and
by the diversion created in her favour by Poland and Turkey. As for
the Turks, Frederick II had incited the Tsarina to renew hostilities
against them ; and they were eventually forced to sign the disad-
vantageous Treaty of Kutchuk-Kainardji, in July, 1774, some months
after the death of Louis XV. But d'Aiguillon was no more responsible
for her misfortunes than he had been for those of Poland.
The Chancellor Maupeou, for his part, had assigned himself the task
of consolidating the absolute monarchy by the destruction of the Parle-
ments. In the night from January 21 to 22, 1771, the magistrates of
the Parlement of Paris were sentenced to exile and relieved of their
positions. Maupdou established a new Parlement, whose members were
nominated by him and were entirely devoid of political authority ; the
jurisdiction of the old Parlement was mutilated by the institution of six
other Courts of justice, called Superior Councils. The other Parhments
and all the judicial tribunals suffered the same fate. Maupeou did away
with the sale of legal offices and made justice free to all; he wished,
further, to simplify legal procedure and to codify the laws. These
reforms in the administration of justice were applauded by the Philoso-
phers ; but pubhc opinion was far from foUowilig them ; and, in truth,
Maupeou had nobody to put in the place of the dismissed maigistrates
except persons of damaged reputation, one of whom, Goezman, was
1763-74] Discredit of Louis XV. His death. 359
convicted by Beaumarchais of having taken a bribe from him ; while,
again, the fact that Maupeou's Parlements were the creatures of a Minister
and of a King who were alike detested, was not calculated to inspire
confidence. Maupeou's coup d'itat, instead of consolidating the royal
authority, threatened its stabihty. What he really did was to cause
an extraordinary effervescence ; and, though this speedily subsided, the
public did not forget the dialogue held between the Parlements and
the King at the time of the coup cTitat. That dialogue bore upon the
respective rights of the Crown and the nation : the Parlement of Paris
declared, for example, in 1763, that the French were "free men and not
slaves " ; in the same year, the Cour des Aides demanded that the States
General should be convened, and the magistrates on all sides invoked
" the right of resistance." Louis XV answered : " We hold our Crown
from God alone. The right of making laws belongs to ourselves alone ;
we neither delegate it nor share it." Such language could not be
forgotten,
Terray, for his part, freed from fear of the Parlements, asserted that
the only way of paying the royal debts was to make a declaration of
bankruptcy. This he accordingly did, silencing protest by the words,
" The King is master." Bankruptcy was a usual proceeding for the State
under the ancien regime; and even Colbert had recourse to it. But
Terray at first neglected to employ the discreet fornialities of his prede-
cessors, and it was a matter of common knowledge that the money
which he withheld from the creditors of the State went to Mme Du
Barry. Public opinion was, in consequence, less quietly resigned to the
fraudulent proceedings of the Government than it had been in the time
of Colbert ; and, by invoking the authority of the King as a cloak for
his actions, Terray brought that authority into final discredit.
It will be seen that the Triumvirate, all things considered, deserved
a better reputation than it obtained, but that it contributed equally with
Choiseul to the dislocation of the ancien rigime. The person of Louis XV
served as a mark for the anger of all parties — that of Choiseul, who
occupied the leisure afforded by his disgrace in writing memoirs, in which
he spoke of the King as " impressionable wax," and blamed his cowardice
and evil disposition ; that of the intellectual spirits of the time, who
compared the enlightened despotism of Frederick II, Catharine II, and
Charles III of Spain with the paltry and hackneyed despotism of the King
of France ; that of the people of Paris, who in their turn attributed
to Louis XV the "Treaty of Famine" — a vast wheat "comer" existing
only in the popular imagination. It may be that, if the reign of the
Triumvirate had lasted longj it would have finally disarmed all oppo-
sition ; for there was no hatred of Louis XV in the rural population, or
in parts of the country at a great distance from the capital, and his vices
were not known outside Paris and the great towns. But the King died
in 1774.
360 State of France at the death of Louis XV. [i774
At the end of his reign — ^when Louis' egoism and slothfulness were
causing the despotic system of government to become arbitrary, and the
administration incoherent and mechanical, and when ample room was
left for unjust practices based on the social privileges of the nobility and
clergy — the popular cry in favour of reform was so insistent, that on
every side the subordinates and subjects of the King tried on their own
initiative to find some remedy for the existing abuses. The high officials,
especially the intendants, offered every encouragement in their power in
their several departments to industry, to commerce, to agriculture ; the
nobility and ecclesiastics on their lands, the bishops in their dioceses did
the same. The middle classes profited by this state of feeling to gratify
their desire for wealth ; but, the richer they grew, the more they were
exasperated by the obstacles put iij the path of industry and commerce
by superannuated institutions, by the privileges of the nobles and
ecclesiastics in the matter of taxation ; and by " Gothic " laws such as
the coutumes, dating from the Middle Ages, which regulated business
transactions and were in flagrant contradiction to the commercial law
which was taking shape by degrees. The protection given in high places
to agriculture did indeed lighten the condition of the peasants, who
ceased to be despised as such, now that the citizen class had begun to
take an interest in them and to bring into fashion the love of nature and
the pleasures of rustic life ; the peasant profited by this state of things
to acquire land of his own, practising desperate economies within his
own miserable income. But he always had just too little land to cultivate,
and upon whatever he had there weighed always the heavy burden of the
royal taxes and the rents due to the privileged classes. And, besides all
this, the literature of the day, instinct with activity, with the spirit of
propagandism and criticism, was spreading the ideas of the- Philosophers
and Economists, with the help of the learned provincial societies, of
masonic lodges, of novelists, of letter-writers, of drawing-room gatherings.
Welcomed by the nobles and ecclesiastics, these ideas robbed them of
all confidence in the legitimacy of their privileges; spreading among the
well-read and ambitious commons, they encouraged them to claim a part
in political life ; they sank deeply into the minds of the populations of
the great towns ; and, if they came to a standstill before the ignorance
of the unlettered country-folk, their echo awoke even in these a confused
sense of the suffering and misery which pressed them down. Hence, when
the day should come for the deserters from the ranks of the nobility, the
Church, and the middle classes, to continue to lead the revolutionary
movement, they were destined to have behind them the uncivilised mass
of the people of the great towns and of the peasantry — an untamed
and redoubtable force.
Louis XV thus died on the eve of a beau tapage. A saying has been
attributed to him which evinces cynical clearsightedness and egoism:
Apres mot le deluge. In very truth, the " deluge " was not to be long
delayed.
361
CHAPTER XII.
SPAIN AND PORTUGAL.
(1746-94.)
(1) SPAIN UNDER FERDINAND VI AND CHARLES III.
Feedinand VI, the sole survivor of the four children of Philip V by
his first wife, Louise of Savoy, ascended the throne of Spain on July 9,
1746. The long exercise of supreme power by Elisabeth Famese was
now replaced by that of the new Queen, Maria Barbara of Braganza,
whose influence over her dull and indolent husband was very great.
The King had many good qualities and virtues, but he was conscious
of his lack of ability and was content to leave the administration of
affairs, in the details of whjch he took no interest, in the hands of others
more capable than himself. His Queen, to whom, though she was quite
without personal charm, he was tenderly attached, had the stronger
character, and the King rarely took any resolution except by her advice.
The immediate effect of the accession of Ferdinand was the relin-
quishment of the ambitious and warlike policy which had so often
dragged Spain into hostilities for objects in which the country had little
or no interest. The new King, however, treated his step-mother, who
thenceforth lived in retirement at San Ildefonso, with kindliness and
magnanimity, and introduced no violent changes into the conduct of
affairs. The old Ministers of Philip V, Villarias and Ensenada, con-
tinued to hold office. The war still went on ; but efforts were quickly
made for bringing about a peaceful settlement. The Queen was Portu-
guese, and negotiations were privately set on foot through the Court
at Lisbon with the British Government. Ferdinand wished to pursue
a national policy, and no longer to allow the interests of Spain to be
subordinated to dynastic and family ties. Villarias, the President of
the Council of Castile, who, as Minister of Foreign Affairs, had shown
strong French sympathies, was therefore replaced by Don Jose de
Carvajal y Lancaster, a younger son of the Duke of Linares, and a
descendant of John of Gaunt. Carvajal was ' a man of the strictest
integrity, somewhat stiff and reserved in manners, experienced in affairs,
and a sound and capable diplomatist. He was proud of his descent
362 The Ministry of Carvajal and Ensenada. [i746-7
from the House of Lancaster and anxious to promote good relations
with England. His colleague, Zeno Somodevilla, Marquis of Ensenada,
who had in 174)3 succeeded Campillo in the Ministries of Finance, of
War, of Marine, and of the Indies, was a man of humble origin, but of
the greatest industry and brilliant abilities, whose love of luxury and
ostentation formed the strongest contrast to the almost austere sim-
plicity of the aristocratic Carvajal. Ensenada was an adherent of the
French alliance, so that the influence of the one nearly balanced that of
the other. Side by side with the two statesmen were the two court
favourites — Father Rabago, the Jesuit confessor of the King, and Carlo
Broschi (Farinelli), the Neapolitan singer, whose lovely voice secured for
him the same highly privileged positibn' in the home life of Ferdinand
and Barbara as it had in that of Philip and Elisabeth. B^bago aimed
at the formation of a party independent of Carvajal and Ensenada, and
was able to exercise a secret control over the very devout King's mind
in moments of doubt and irresolution. FarineUi's influence, especially
with the Queen, was so great that his favour was courted on all hands,
even by Ministers of State and foreign ambassadors. But, amidst all
the temptations that surrounded him, he remained honest, unassuming,
and independent, and was content to give his services to his royal
patrons in a spirit of disinterestedness.
One of the first steps of the new Government was the nomination of
the Marquis de La Mina to the command of the Spanish forces in Italy,
and the supersession of Generals Gages and Castelar. Mina found the
Franco-Spanish army retreating from Piacenza before the victorious
Austro-Piedmontese in a state of disorganisation. After halting at
Genoa, he withdrew his forces into Provence, whither he was followed
by the French under Maillebois. Genoa was left to its fate, and surren-
dered on September 15, Not content with this success, the allied armies,
under the command of Charles Emmanuel and Count Brown, crossed
the Var and invaded Provence. Their progress was however speedily
arrested by the news that the Genoese had risen in revolt and expelled
the Austrian garrison (December). Finding their enemies discouraged
and hesitating, the Spaniards under Mina and the French, now com-
manded by Marshal Belleisle, assumed the ofiensive and advanced
(February, 1747) along the western Riviera to the relief of Genoa, which
was closely invested by the English fleet and an Austrian army. They
were at length successful, and the blockade was raised (July 6). A
fortnight later, an attempt of the French to force the pass of Assietta
brought upon them a disastrous defeat at the hands of Charles Emmanuel
(July 19) at Exilles. After this no serious operations were undertaken.
Meanwhile, the negotiations for a peaceful settlement were making
headway. The brilliant successes of Marshal de Saxe in the Low
Countries had alarmed the British Government. France, too, was
anxious to terminate hostilities which had crippled her navy and
1747-62] Peace of Aioc-la-Chapelle. — Treaty of Aranjuez. 363
finances. The pcmrparlers between the Courts of St James' and of
Madrid carried on through the mediation of Portugal had led to an
understanding between them. The chief obstacle had been the question
of the establishment of Don Philip in Italy; but on this point Ferdinand
stood firm. He had no desire to have his half-brother, with his pro-
nounced French leanings and intriguing temper, back in Spain. The
recognition of Philip as Duke not only of Parma and Piacenza, but also
of Guastalla, was ultimately conceded by the Treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle,
the preliminaries of which were signed (April 80, 1748) by France and
Great Britain, and which was definitely accepted by Spain six months
later (October 20). The commercial difierences required separate treat-
ment and raised questions of some delicacy between the British and
Spanish negotiators. Thanks, however, to the skill of Sir Benjamin
Keene, who was now for some years to exercise great influence at Madrid,
the Treaty of Aquisgran was signed (October 5, 1749), by which Great
Britain secured the confirmation of all the commercial immunities and
rights obtained by the earlier treaties, and undertook to renounce the
remaining term of the Asiento contract, accepting df 100,000 as com-
pensation to the South Sea Company for the loss of its privileges.
The yeajfs that followed were marked by the struggle between the
English and French Governments to secure the goodwill of Spain. The
Peace of Aix-la-Chapelle was felt to be little more than an armed truce,
and both Powers were anxious for the Spanish alliance in case of a fresh
outbreak of hostilities. Ferdinand and his Queen were alike in favour
of a peaceful policy, and of maintaining friendly relations with both the
rival Powers. In this policy they had the firm support of Carvajal. On
the other hand, Ensenada, who was jealous of the growing influence of
his colleague, worked incessantly in the interests of France, with the
object of securing a renewal of the "Family Compact" between the
Bourbon Kings. Madrid became thus for a succession of years a centre
of diplomatic scheming and intrigue, of which a wonderfully clear and
graphic account is given in the despatches of Keene. Ensenada's failure
. to induce Ferdinand to entangle himself in a French alliance was largely
due to the sleepless vigilance and statesmanlike tact and address of
this eminent ambassador, whose exertions placed the relations between
England and Spain upon a more amicable footing than that on which
they had stood for more than half a century. The decline of the
influence of the Court of Versailles was conclusively shown by the Treaty
which, in spite of French opposition, was signed at Aranjuez (June 14,
1752) for securing the neutrality of Italy. All points of dispute with
regard to territorial rights in Italy were settled to the satisfaction of the
interested parties, with the solitary exception of the King of Naples.
Charles complained that it infringed his rights to the allodials in
Tuscany, and to the disposal of the Crown of Naples on his succession
to the Spanish throne, which he regarded as assured.
364 Whll Foreign Minister. — Fall of Ensenada. [1752-^
He even went so far as to appeal to the French and English Govern-
ments for support against his half-brother, but without success. The
defeat of the French party at Madrid was even more marked in the
failure of the effort made to obtain the recall of the Spanish ambassador
at the Court of St James', Richard Wall, who had done much to promote
a good understanding between England and Spain, and was accused of
having lent himself to intrigues hostile to France. Wall, an Irishman
by birth, had early in life entered the Spanish service ; his abilities had
secured for him the patronage of Ensenada, and it was to this Minister
that he owed his earliest diplomatic appointments. On the present
occasion Wall was able successfully to disprove the charges against him,
and was confirmed in his post at London.
The sudden death of Carvajal, on April 8, 1754, was a serious
loss to Spain. It was feared that the inclinations of Ensenada, whose
influence with the Queen was great, would ensure the triumph of the
French party. Both Ferdinand and Barbara, however, were bent on the
maintenance of peace, and dreaded the consequences of any tightening of
the bonds with France. They were strengthened in their resolve not to
permit any change of policy by the advice of the Duke of Huescar and
the Count of Valparaiso, two prominent court officials and friends of
Carvajal. Neither of them would accept the vacant ministry of Foreign
Affairs; but, acting on the instigation of Keene, they suggested the fitness
of Richard Wall for the post, and their counsel was accepted. But
Ensenada, still intent upon embroiling Spain in hostilities with Great
Britain, entered into secret negotiations with the Court of Versailles for
a close alliance, and, in his capacity as Minister of the Indies, sent out
orders to Havana for an expedition to be got ready for the expulsion of
the English from their settlements on the Gulf of Mexico. He thus hoped
to. force the hand of his sovereign, relying upon the help of his friends
Farinelli and Rabago. But the British Minister, Keene, whose vigilance
had discovered these intrigues, took Wall and Huescar into his confidence,
and furnished them with proofs of Ensenada's manoeuvres, which they in
their turn laid before the King. The Minister was suddenly arrested in
the night of July 20, 1754), and, after being deprived of his offices, was
sent into retirement at Granada. An inventory of his effects showed him
to be possessed of immense wealth. He was, however, treated leniently,
no proceedings were taken against him; and, though he was exiled, a
pension was granted to him. Father Rabago was likewise exiled, on the
charge of having fomented a rebellion of the Jesuits in Paraguay.
Ensenada, whatever his faults, deserved well of his country. Even
the chief author of his downfall. Sir Benjamin Keene, speaks with
unstinted admiration of his "perspicuous parts, extensive knowledge
and activity in the transaction of business," and of the great services
which had signalised his ministry. Among these may be mentioned his
efforts to improve agriculture, to open out communication by means of
1753-7] Services of Ensenada. — Minorca and Gibraltar. 365
canals and roads, to reopen the mines by revoking the prohibition on
the exportation of precious metals subject to a smaU royalty, and to
reform the system of taxation, by the abolition of the system of farming
the taxes in Castile and by a scheme for replacing the hateful imposts
known as millones and alcabalas by a single tax {contribudon unica)
levied upon a valuation of income and property. At the time of his
fall, this reform was under consideration. His most remarkable achieve-
ment was his reorganisation of the Spanish navy. The fortified harbom-
and arsenal at Ferrol was his creation, and all the other arsenals were
enlarged and put in order. To effect this, he neglected the army ; for
his paramount aim was to enable Spain to hold her own against England
at sea, and in the course of his administration he raised Spain both in
number of vessels and in efficiency to a more formidable maritime
position than she had held since the days of Philip II. He had also
a large share in bringing about the conclusion of a Concordat with
Pope Benedict XIV, which was signed on January 11, 1753. This
instrument recognised unreservedly the royal right of patronage, save
in the case of a small limited number of benefices, and settled other
matters of controversy between the Papacy and the Spanish Crown.
The redistribution of offices which ensued upon the fall of Ensenada,
and the appointment of Wall as successor to Carvajal, did not, as had
been expected, effect any real change of policy. Ferdinand had firmly
convinced himself that peace was necessary for the recuperation of Spain,
and nothing could move him from his determination to remain neutral
in the war which broke out between England and France in 1756. In
this determination he could always reckon on the support of the new
Minister for Foreign Affairs, who, though well-disposed to England,
was anxious to act disinterestedly and impartially for the best interests
of his adopted country. The capture of Minorca by the French (May,
1766) furnished both the belligerent Powers with an opportunity for
making an appeal to Spanish patriotism. The French Government
proposed an oflfensive and defensive alliance between the two Bourbon
kingdoms, in which France should engage to cede Minorca and to aid
the Spaniards by land and by sea in the recovery of Gibraltar. Keene
was instructed by Pitt in a long confidential despatch (August 23, 1757)
to use all his well-tried diplomatic skill and influence at the Court of
Madrid to secure Spanish cooperation with Great Britain in the War,
more especially in the recapture of Minorca. In return, the British
Government actually offered to cede Gibraltar, besides giving full satis-
faction to all Spanish complaints in the matter of privateering and of
encroachments on the coast of Honduras. It was the last act of Keene,
who died on December 15, 1757. From the first, his experience told
him that the British offer was doomed to failure. Neither bribes nor
entreaties, whether from London or from Versailles, could move Ferdinand
from his fixed resolve not to be dragged into hostilities.
366 Deaths of Queen Barbara and King Ferdinand. [iV58-9
In the pursuance of his pacific policy, Queen Barbara had given the
King her fullest sympathy and support. Unfortunately, her health had
been of late seriously impaired, and an attack of illness terminated fatally
on August 27, 1758. The bonds of affection, which had so long united
the royal pair, had grown with the lapse of time constantly stronger and
closer, and now the loss of his wife had the most fatal effect upon the
mind of Ferdinand. His mental powers had always been feeble, and
he was Subject to fits of hypochondria. He now completely secluded
himself, refused to speak, and finally fell into a state of complete
lunacy. After lingering on in this condition for some monthsj he died
on August 10, 1769. Thus ended the reign of this well-intentioned
prince who, though lacking all the qualities of a great ruler, was enabled
nevertheless by his personal integrity, his prudence, his kindliness of
temper, and his simplicity of life, to endear himself to his subjects and
advance their welfare. JHe did much for the encoiu-agement of learning
and science. The proceedings of the Inquisition were greatly restricted,
and public autos-de-fk. abolished. Ferdinand could, moreover, boast that
he had found the country's finances ruined and the navy in a state of
decay, but that he left behind him a formidable fleets and a balance
of three millions sterling in the national treasury.
By the death of Ferdinand without issue the succession to the
Spanish throne passed to his half-brother, Charles, King of Naples.
The Queen Dowager, Elisabeth Farnese, by the will of the deceased
monarch, became Regent until the arrival of Charles III. The first
care of the new King was to negotiate with' the Empress Queen and
the King of Sardinia concerning the arrangements made by the Treaty
of Aquisgran (1749), to which Charles had never acceded, by which
Philip, Duke of Parma, was to succeed to the Crown of the Two Sicilies,
and his duchies of Parma, Piacenza, and Guastalla to be shared between
Austria and Sardinia. A speedy settlement was effected, for it was the
interest of Austria at this juncture to conciliate the new ruler of Spain
and the Indies ; and the claims of Charles Emmanuel on Piacenza were
compromised by a money payment. The eldest son of Charles III,
Philip, had been imbecile from his birth; and he was now formally
and publicly declared to be incapable of reigning. Charles, accordingly,
designated his second son, Charles, to be Prince of the Asturias and heii:
to the Spanish throne, and he abdicated the Crown of Naples and the
Two Sicilies, in favour of his third son, Ferdinand, then eight years
of age. This act accomplished, Charles III, accompanied by his Queen
and family and escorted by a Spanish squadron, set sail for Barcelona
from Naplesj where during a reign of twenty-five years he had won the
hearts of his Italian subjects. His reception on Spanish soil (October 17,
1759) was enthusiastic, and on December 9 he reached Madrid, where he
met his mother again for the first time since his departure from Spain
in 1731. It was soon clear, however, that neither he nor his wife,
irsG-eo] Character andpolicy of Charles III. 367
Maria Amalia of Saxony, though they treated Elisabeth with respect
and deference, had any intention of allowing her to exercise any influence
in affairs, and she speedily withdrew into retirement at San Ildefonso.
Three months after her state entry into the capital (July 13, 1760)
Queen Amalia, who had been in bad health ever since her arrival in
Spain, died. Her htisband was deeply aflBicted at his loss, and never
married again.
The habits of King Charles were exceedingly methodical. He rose
early and spent the morning in the transaction of business, making
himself minutely and conscientiously familiar with the details of all
affairs of State. He was not a man of striking ability; but his ex-
perience was already great, and he united great honesty of purpose and
an inflexible regard for justice with a sincere desire to promote the
well-being of his subjects. He combined deep piety with a keen interest
in the advances of science aixd knowledge. The whole of his afternoons,
whatever the weather, he occupied in hunting and shooting, in which
he sought and found not merely amusement, but a healthful diversion
from the pressure of state cares and an antidote to the constitutional
melancholy which afflicted so many members of his family. Simple in
his tastes and habits, and genial in manner, this robust and bronzed
sportsman had all the qualities for winning the hearts of those with
whom he was brought into contact. Charles governed indeed auto-
cratically, but Spain had never been more in need of the firm hand of
a benevolent and enlightened ruler. On his accession he made few
changes in the personnel of the Government. He retained Wall in his
post, and gave no office to Ensenada, though recalling him from exile.
Farinelli was banished, and the Marquis of Squillaci, a Sicilian, was made
Minister of War and Finance.
The beginning of the new reign was to be attended by misfortune.
Charles never forgot that he was a Bourbon and cherished strong French
sympathies. Moreover, the imperious action of the British admiral in
1742, and his threat to bombard Naples, had rankled in the King's
memory. The Seven Years' War was now in mid course and in every
part of the world the British arms, directed by the genius and energy of
Pitt, were victorious over the French. Choiseul, of whose policy a con-
nected account is given elsewhere, in the autumn of 1759 began to make
overtures for peace and offered to submit certain disputed points to the
arbitration of His Catholic Majesty, But Spain had herself grievances
against England with regard to contraband, and settlements on the
coast of Honduras, the searching of Spanish ships, and the claim of Spain
to a share in the Newfoundland fisheries. The proposed mediation of
the Spanish King was accordingly rejected by the British Government.
The war went on still, disastrously for France. Meanwhile there was a
continual exchange of friendly communications between this Courts of
Versailles and Madrid, and the efforts of Choiseul were skilfully directed
^Q^ Renewal of the Family Compact. Warmth England. [1759-61
to persuading Charles that the triumph of England would spell danger
to the Spanish dominion in South America, and that it was in the
interest of Spain that the two countries should make common cause
against a common foe. The refusal of Pitt to offer any satisfactory
redress to the Spanish grievances gave added force to the representation
of the French Minister. In the spring of 1761 matters came to a climax.
The Marquis de Grimaldo, who had been ambassador at the Hague,
was sent by Charles to Paris (February 11), with secret instructions
to approach Choiseul with proposals for a renewal of the "Family
Compact," and for the conclusion of an offensive and defensive alliance
between France and Spain. The final result of their deliberations
was the conclusion of two treaties, one permanent on the lines of
those previously concluded between the sovereigns of the House of
Bourbon, and known as the "Family Compact." (It was afterwards
joined by the King of Naples and the Duke of Parma.) In the second,
which was a secret convention, it was agreed that in the conditions on
which France was willing to make peace should be included a settlement
of the grievances of Spain against Great Britain, the King of Spain
undertaking to declare war, should these overtures be rejected. Both the
treaties, which have been more fully described elsewhere, were actually
signed on August 15. Pitt had, however, already peremptorily declined
to allow the disputes with Spain to be mixed up with the French nego-
tiations, and, had he had his own way, would at once have summoned
the King of Spain to withdraw his demands on pain of instant war.
The retirement of Pitt and the accession of Lord Bute to power gave
Charles III an opportunity of delaying, by a further exchange of notes
and explanations, the inevitable hostilities until his naval and military
prejparations had been completed and the treasure ships from America
had safely come to port. When this object had been attained, the
categorical demand of the British Government as to the cause of the
warlike preparations and of the existence of a treaty with France was
met by a refusal to give any explanation. The British ambassador,
Lord Bristol, left Madrid in December, 1761, and at the same time an
embargo was laid by the Spanish Government on all British ships in
Spanish ports. Ferdinand's prudent policy of neutrality was definitely
abandoned, and Charles threw in his lot with Louis XV for a
renewal of the struggle in which France had already suffered so many
defeats.
One of the first steps taken by the allied Bourbon monarchs, in
accordance with the terms of the secret treaty, was the sending of a
joint note to Lisbon, requiring the King of Portugal to close his ports
to the English and observe strict neutrality. The reply was a firm
refusal. Hereupon, an army of 40,000 crossed the Portuguese frontier
under the Marquis of Sarria, a general old in years but inexperienced in
command, and proceeded to take possession of the country north of the
1761-2] Portuguese campaign-Loss of Havana andManila. 369
Douro. There was little serious resistance. Moncorvo, Braganza, and
Miranda fell rapidly into the hands of the invaders. Lack of provisions
stopped the advance on Oporto, and the news of the landing of 6000
English troops at Lisbon under the command of a distinguished German
officer, Count Lippe, led to a change of plans. It was resolved to besiege
Almeida, and to push on to Lisbon by the valley of the Tagus. Before
Almeida, the Spaniards, now under the command of the Count of Aranda,
were reinforced by a body of 8000 French. Nine days after the trenches
had been opened, Almeida surrendered and Aranda now advanced with
the intention of crossing the Tagus at Villavelha. He found that Lippe
had entrenched himself with a strong British and Portuguese force at
Abrantes, and had established fortified posts at Alvite and Niza, to
prevent the Spanish general from effecting the passage of the river.
Aranda succeeded in forcing the pass of Alvite and reaching Villavelha ;
but the strength of the position of Abrantes, and the vigilance of
Burgoyne, who commanded the detachment at Niza, checked his further
progress. The autumnal rains began to fall ; and Aranda found it
impossible to remain longer in a desolate and rugged country, with
troops suffering heavily from disease and privations. He accordingly
ingloriously withdrew his discouraged and diminished army into winter
quarters at Albuquerque.
Meanwhile, two serious disasters had befallen the Spanish arms in
the West and East Indies. Admiral Pocock appeared before Havana
(June 6, 1762), in command of a British fleet of twenty-four ships of the
line and ten frigates convoying a large number of transports. Every
effort had been made to put Havana in a state of defence, and the
Governor, Don Juan de Prado, was confident of his ability to hold his
own. On June 8, 8000 British troops, commanded by Lord Albemarle,
effected a landing on the coast without opposition, and then proceeded
to lay siege to the Castle of Morro, the chief defence of the harbour of
Havana. The garrison, led by a gallant naval officer, Don Luis Velasco,
made a most determined defence; but, though the British force had
suffered heavy losses through sickness, the vigour of its attack triumphed
over aU obstacles. The Castle of Morro was taken by assault (July 30)
after a prolonged struggle in which Velasco himself fell. Prado, fearing
the destruction of the town by bombardment, a few days later entered
into negotiations for its surrender^ and the capitulation was signed dn
August 13. This important success had cost the British 2910 men.
Twelve ships of war were captured, and immense military and naval
stores and treasure amounting to fifteen million dollars. On September 22
Admiral Cornish appeared before Manila with thirteen ships, and a
force of 6000 men under General Draper effected a landing. After a
fierce bombardment the town surrendered ; and of an indemnity of four
million dollars demanded from it more than half was secured, the
Treasury of Madrid being left to pay the remainder — which was never
C. M. H. VI. CH. XII. 24
370 Peace concluded. — Grimaldo and SguiUaci. [i762-6
received. The only set-off to this series of misfortunes was the conquest
of the colony of Sacramento from the Portuguese.
Finding that Bute's Government was pacifically disposed, the Courts
of Versailles and Madrid, as has been related in another chapter, now
seriously entered upon negotiations for peace. The Spanish ambassador
at Paris, Grimaldo, was the representative of Charles III at the pour-
parlers. All parties being desirous for a cessation of hostilities, the
terms for a peaceful settlement of the many points in dispute were
aiTanged without much difficulty ; and the definitive Treaty was signed
on February 20, 1763. In return for the restoration of Havana and
Manila, Spain ceded Florida to Great Britain, and an important piece
of territory east and south-east of the Mississippi. The right to cut
logwood in Honduras was granted to British subjects but coupled with
the stipulation that all fortifications were to be rased. The claim of
fishery rights on the banks of Newfoundland was abandoned, Portugal
was evacuated, and the colony of Sacramento restored to the Portuguese.
By a private agreement Spain received Louisiana from France in
compensation for the loss of Florida.
The conclusion of peace was speedily followed by the retirement of
Wall. He had served his adopted country well, in spite of his dislike
both of the Family Compact and the War with England ; but he was
not a self-seeker or enamoured of office, and he now begged the King
to allow him to resign his post of Minister of Foreign Affairs on the
ground of failure of eyesight and other growing infirmities. Charles
assented most unwillingly and granted a substantial pension to the
retiring Minister. He was succeeded by the Marquis de Grimaldo, a
Genoese of noble extraction, who as ambassador at Versailles had been
one of the chief authors of the "Family Compact." Disputes quickly
arose with Great Britain about the privileges accorded to the English
settlers in Honduras, and war at one time seemed imminent. As,
however, it was not the wish of the King to be dragged into hostilities,
these questions were settled by concessions on both sides. ITie necessity
of a policy of reform at home aiming at a revival of the country from
the state of decay and lethargy into which it had for some time been
falling, had since his accession been continually present to the mind of
Charles. Squillaci was now to carry out the changes, which the King
considered necessary for the purpose; but this Minister, though experienced
in the management of affairs, and exceedingly industrious and exact,
was not a man of talent, of culture, or of tact ; and he showed a con-
spicuous disregard of the tenacious attachment of the Spanish people
to their traditional customs. Finding that the streets of the capital were
badly lighted, extremely filthy, and hardly safe for passers-by, Squillaci
had them cleansed and lighted ; and, not content with these measures,
he attempted to enforce a change in the national dress, on the ground
that the wide-brimmed hats and long cloaks generally worn were
1766] Rising at Madrid. Sguillaci dismissed. 371
favourable to the perpetration of crimes. An edict was therefore issued
prohibiting the wearing of the Spanish capas and sombreros, and
enjoining the general use of the French style of dress (March, 1766).
The populace were already hostile to the Minister of Finance, to whose
measures they attributed a considerable rise that had taken place in
the price of provisions, and the attempt of the police to compel the
Madrilerios to abandon the national costume aroused fierce opposition.
Resistance was secretly organised, and on Palm Sunday (March 23) it
broke out in open revolt. At 4 o'clock in the afternoon of that day a
body of men, arrayed in the forbidden costume, openly challenged arrest,
and attacked the soldiers, who tried to seize them. It was the signal
for a general rising. With loud cries of "Long live the King; death
to Squillaci," the crowd made their way to the house of the obnoxious
Minister ; but he had been warned in time and fled to one of the royal
palaces, his wife seeking refuge in a convent. The house was gutted,
and the furniture thrown out of the windows and burnt. The windows
of Grimaldo's house were likewise smashed. At midnight the insurgents
dispersed, only to gather in still greater numbers on the morrow. An
encounter then took place between them and a picket of the Walloon
Guards, who, on being assailed with stones, fired and killed and
wounded some of the populace. Then the Guards were in turn attacked
and dispersed ; those who were captured being murdered and their bodies
horribly mutilated. All efforts to appease the tumult proving in vain,
Charles was at length compelled to appear in person on the balcony of
the palace, and to accede to the demands of the mob. He promised to
dismiss Squillaci and appoint a Spaniard in his place, to revoke the
edict about the hats and capes, to reduce the price of provisions, and to
grant a general pardon. Alarmed for his safety, the King with his
family secretly made his escape at night through the cellars of the
palace, and betook himself to Aranjuez. Irritated at this seeming act
of treachery, the mob hereupon rose again and for two or three days
held Madrid in its power. Not till the Governor had read a message
from the King undertaking to carry out his promise was tranquillity
restored. Squillaci had followed Charles to Aranjuez ; but on the 27th
he departed under charge of a military escort for Cartagena, whence
he sailed to Sicily, Six years later he was appointed ambassador at
Venice,
The King's pride was deeply hurt by these occurrences, and it was
many months before he returned to Madrid. Don Miguel Musquiz,
Squillaci's first secretary, was appointed Minister of Finance, and the
oflice of President of the Council of Castile was conferred upon the
Count of Aranda, with full powers for dealing with a state of affairs
that needed the firm hand of a strong and capable administrator. He
proved himself to be the right man for the task. By a rare combination
of tact and energy, order was speedily restored, tiie city was divided
CH. xn. 2i — 2
372 Aranda restores order. Expulsion of the Jesuits. [i766-7
into districts and thoroughly policed, vagabonds and idlers were expelled,
and finally, on the petition of the representatives of the nobles, the
gremios (trade gilds) and the Municipal Council, the concessions extorted
from the King by the insurgents were revoked. The King, however,
consented not to enforce the edict about dress except in the immediate
vicinity of the Court, and at last, in the month of December, reentered
his capital amidst the plaudits of the people. The death of the Queen
Mother, Elisabeth Farnese, had taken place at San Ildefonso on July 10.
Charles, though strongly attached to her, had never allowed her to
exercise any political influence.
The year 1767 was marked by the expulsion of the Jesuits from
Spain. The members of this Order had already been expelled from
Portugal (1759) and from France (1764). Charles III, though extremely
devout, had throughout his reign shown that in ecclesiastical no less than
in civil affairs he was determined to be master in his own kingdom.
Jesuit intrigues both in Spain and in Paraguay had prejudiced him
against the Society, before a secret enquiry instituted by Aranda into the
origin and causes of the Madrid outbreak laid the blame upon the
Jesuits. Aranda was himself a Voltairean and an enemy of the Society,
and there can be little doubt that he used his opportunity to persuade
the King that the Jesuits were disloyal to their country and plotting
against his own life. Charles was induced to determine upon the
immediate expulsion of the Order from Spain ; and the execution of the
decree was entrusted to Aranda, who carried it out with the most
extraordinary secrecy and success. Orders in the King's own hand were
despatched to the Governor of each province, to be opened on April 2,
those for the capital on March 31. The six colleges of the Jesuits in
Madrid and its neighbourhood were simultaneously surrounded at mid-
night, the inmates summoned to the refectory, ordered to seat themselves
in parties of ten in vehicles prepared for the purpose, and then conducted
to some place on the sea coast, where frigates were ready to carry
them to Italy. On April 2 similar orders were executed throughout
Spain. No resistance was offered. After suffering untold hardships, the
unhappy Jesuits were after three months on shipboard allowed to land
at Civit^ Vecchia, and settled in various towns in the Papal States, a
scanty pension being granted to them by the King for their maintenance.
The expulsion of the Jesuits from Spanish America and especially from
the flourishing missions of Paraguay would have been attended with
great difBculty, had the Fathers opposed the royal orders. Trained to
submission, they obeyed everywhere with the greatest fortitude and
resignation. The sufferings of the South American Jesuits in their
voyage to Italy were even more prolonged and more severe than those
of their Spanish brethren.
The suppression of disorder and the overthrow of the power of the
Jesuits left the. King, who had never summoned the Cortes since they
1762-8] ORdlly in Lowisiana.-Falkland Islands dispute. 373
had taken the oath of fidelity to him on his accession, supreme and
absolute in the State. He had never lost an opportunity of circum-
scribing the privileges of the clergy and the abuses of papal interference
in his dominions, and had made the bishops to recognise his authority.
He had not ventured to abolish the Inquisition ; but he had forced this
dreaded tribunal to submit its decrees against books to the approbation
of the royal Council and to soften its penalties. Very few persons were
put to death by sentence of the Inquisition between 1759 and 1788, and
long before the latter date its power had been reduced to a mere shadow.
The cession by France of Louisiana to the west of the Mississippi in
1762 had been unwillingly accepted by Spain, and speedily became the
cause of trouble. The Spanish Governor, Antonio de Ulloa, stirred up
general discontent among the habitants at New Orleans by the restric-
tions imposed upon trade and by his general tactlessness and severity.
An insurrection broke out in 1768, and a large force had to be
despatched from Havana under General O'Reilly for its suppression.
Meanwhile, the relations between the Spanish and British Governments
continued to be strained. The extent of the contraband trade carried on
by British subjects on the Mississippi, at Campeche, and other places on
the Gulf of Mexico, and with the Spanish colonies generally, caused much
friction. A further irritant was the question of the ransom of Manila,
which Charles III obstinately refused to pay, while the British Ministers
as persistently pressed for a settlement. A dispute about the Falkland
Islands increased the soreness, and well-nigh led to an outbreak of
hostilities between the two nations. Both Spain and Great Britain
claimed the possession of these bleak and inhospitable islands (discovered
by Captain Cowley in 1686), which were useless except as a station for
whale and cod fishery. In 1766 an English settlement was made for
this purpose and named Port Egmont. Four years later (1770), the
news that an expedition sent by the Spanish Governor of Buenos Ayres
had expelled the English from Port Egmont aroused general indignation
in England, and a strong protest, with a demand for reparation, was
lodged at the Court of Madrid. Aranda urged Charles not to yield;
and both sides made preparations for war. Relying on the terms of the
Family Compact, Charles caused urgent diplomatic representations to be
made at Paris ; but the finances of France were not in a condition to
bear the burden of another war. In 1770, as related elsewhere, the
influence of Madame Du Barry was supreme at Versailles, and Choiseul
fell from power. Spain found herself isolated, and, her fleet being in no
condition to face the sea-power of Great Britain single-handed, Charles
was compelled to give way. An apology was made to the British
Government; the Spanish forces were withdrawn from the Falklands,
and the English settlers reinstated at Port Egmont. Aranda, on whom
Charles threw part of the blame for the humiliating position in which he
374 Eoopedition against Algiers. [i7V3-V
found himself, was appointed to the embassy at Paris, and was succeeded
in the presidency of the Council of Castile by Don Manuel Ventura
Rgueroa (August, 1773).
In 1774 tlie Moors made an attack upon the Spanish fortresses of
Melilla and Penon de Velez on the African coast, but were driven off
with loss. As it was known that the Dey of Algiers had been the
instigator of this breach of the peace, Charles III determined to use his
army and navy, which now had been by strenuous efforts reorganised
and made effective, to destroy the power of this potentate and make
himself master of the nest of pirates which had so long been a scourge
to the Mediterranean. He chose as commander of the expeditionary
force Alexander O'Reilly, who, after his success in suppressing the
insurrection at New Orleans, had been entrusted with the task of
reforming the organisation of the Spanish army on the model of that
of Frederick the Great. A great effort was made. A fleet of 46 vessels
of war conveying 22,000 men appeared before Algiers on July 1, 1775.
After disembarking on the 7th, the troops, misled by a feigned retreat
of the enemy, advanced towards the town, only to find themselves
suddenly enveloped on both flanks by far superior forces. They were
compelled to retreat in disorder and suffered heavy losses before
O'Reilly was, with difficulty, able to reembark them. In this disastrous
affair 27 officers and 500 soldiers were killed, 191 officers and 2088
soldiers wounded. Sixteen guns and all the stores that had been landed
were abandoned. The lack of provisions making it impossible to remain
in the bay, the whole armament returned to Alicante, bringing back the
news of their disgrace. The utter collapse of this enterprise on which so
many hopes had been placed caused deep disappointment and general
indignation in Spain, O'Reilly barely escaped with his life from the
fury of the populace, and was removed from his post at Madrid. Nor
did Grimaldo escape a full share of the odium which fell upon O'Reilly.
He offered his resignation to the King ; but Charles, always staunch to
those who served him well, refused to accept it. The Minister, however,
had many enemies, among them the Prince of the Astiu:ia5 ; and at last the
King reluctantly yielded to his desire for retirement (November 7, 1776).
In February, 1777, Grimaldo left Madrid for Rome, where he had been
appointed ambassador in the place of Don Jose Monino, Count of Florida
Blanca, whom the King by Grimaldo's own wish had nominated to
succeed him as Minister.
Florida Blanca, who had already won distinction during his embassy
at Rome, was able to begin his administration with a successful settle-
ment of the long pending disputes with Portugal in South America
concerning the colony of Sacramento and the question of boundaries
generally. As to this question it will be sufficient to say here that,
finding the English fully occupied by their difficulties with their own
insurgent colonies in North America, the Spanish Government had
1776-9] Florida Blanca Minister. — American revolt. 376
determined to take advantage of the situation by despatching a strong
force to the Rio Plata to put an end to the aggression of the Portuguese
in that region, and to drive them away from their settlements on the
north bank of the river. The despatch of an expeditionary force with 12
vessels of war conveying 9000 men was one of the last acts of Grimaldo's
Ministry (November, 1776). After seizing the island of St Catharine,
it took possession, almost without resistance, of the colony of Sacra-
mento. At this very time Joseph I, King of Portugal, died (February 24,
1777). This event was the signal for the fall of Pombal, and the
accession of Maria I, whose mother, Maria Victoria, the sister of
Charles III, had been opposed for years to that Minister's policy.
Florida Blanca thus found an opening for an accommodation, of which
he skilfully availed himself. His proposals for the drawing up of a
treaty of limits were favourably received, and the negotiations were
conducted with such mutual goodwill that an agreement was signed at
San Ildefonso, October 1, 1777, by Florida Blanca and the Portuguese
plenipotentiai-y Francisco de Sousa Coutinho. By this so-called Prelimi-
nary Treaty of 1777 all the disputed boundary questions were regulated,
but its importance was greatly augmented by means of a treaty of
defensive alliance and amity concluded at the Pardo on March 24, 1778.
This drawing together of the two neighbouring countries, so long
alienated from each other, which was marked by a visit of a year's
duration by the Queen Dowager of Portugal to her brother, was of
especial value to Spain when on the eve of a new war with England.
On the outbreak of war between Great Britain and her North
American colonies, France, having after some hesitation thrown in her lot
with the rebels (March, 1778), made every possible effort to induce
Charles III to seize so favourable an opportunity for drawing the sword
against the hereditary enemy of the House of Bourbon. Aranda at Paris
energetically supported a war policy. But Charles was more than doubt-
ful. The consequences of the participation of Spain in the Seven Years'
War had been disastrous, and he listened not unsympathetically to the
plea urged by the British Government that it would be dangerous for his
monarchy to support American colonists in armed revolt against their
mother country. Florida Blanca, therefore, pursued a cautious and
temporising course. Finally, at the beginning of 1779, Charles proffered
his mediation. Since France required that the independence of the
colonies should be recognised by England as a preliminary to the dis-
cussion of such a proposal, it was contemptuously rejected by the British
Government, which declared that the right to treat with its own colonies
without foreign interference was a first principle on which it must insist;
and that any other course would be inconsistent with the national honour.
Florida Blanca's specific plan was that a truce should be concluded
between England and France, to which the colonies should agree ; and
that then the plenipotentiaries of the three parties and of the mediating
376 Spain declares war against Great Britain. [1779-8O
Power should meet at Madrid and enter into negotiations for a permanent
peace. The reply of the British Ministry was that this proposal
" seemed to proceed on every principle which had been disclaimed, and
to contain every term which had been rejected." Charles had hoped that
he might without war have obtained the concession of Gibraltar, as the
price of his neutrality and mediation. As soon, however, as the un-
bending demeanour of the British Ministry convinced him that further
diplomatic efforts were useless, he suddenly changed his attitude ; and,
after despatching to Lord Weymouth, the Secretary of State, a long
memorandum recounting at length all the grievances of Spain against
Great Britain, he declared war (June, 1779).
Spain commenced hostilities in a more favourable position than on
previous occasions. The recent alliance with Portugal meant security
from attack both in Europe and in South America, and the closing of
Portuguese ports to the English squadrons. The relations with the
Moors were friendly. The Spanish people were filled with patriotic
enthusiasm at the prospect of the recovery of Gibraltar and Minorca,
and eagerly made voluntary offerings for the prosecution of the war.
The combined Spanish and French navies had a great numerical superiority
over the British, and the design was formed of landing a large force
upon the Isle of Wight and striking at the very heart of the British
power by the capture of the port and arsenal of Portsmouth. Never
perhaps has England been in more serious danger of invasion than in
July, 1779, when the combined Franco-Spanish fleet under Admirals
d'Orvilliers and Cordoba appeared before Plymouth, while an army
of 40,000 men lay encamped at Brest and Dunkirk, furnished with
transports. The British fleet under Admiral Hardy numbered only
38 sail. How the Bourbon alliance failed in its ambitious enterprise
has been told elsewhere. When the fleets returned to winter in Brest
and Cadiz, their crews decimated by sickness, and without having
achieved anything, except the capture of one British ship, the Ardent
which had mistaken the enemy for her own fleet, there was grievous
disappointment and heartburning.
The chief efibrts of the Spanish Government were thenceforth centred
on the capture of Gibraltar, which had already been closely invested
by sea and land. So strict was the blockade that it was believed the
garrison would soon be driven by hunger to capitulate. These hopes
were frustrated by the brilliant exploit of Admiral Rodney, who in the
depth of winter, with a relieving squadron of 28 ships, ran the gauntlet
of the fleets at Brest, Ferrol, and Cadiz, succeeded in capturing a large
convoy off Cape Finisterre, and then, near Trafalgar, destroyed a Spanish
squadron under Admiral Langara (January 10, 1780), which had been
prevented by the tempestuous weather from effecting a junction with
the rest of the Spanish fleet under Cordoba. Out of nine ships of the
line and two frigates only four escaped. In the teeth of the storms,
1779-81] Secret negotiations about Gibraltar. 377
which scattered his foes, Rodney now revictualled the fortress and then
sailed to the West Indies.
In the following summer a gleam of success was to attend the Spanish
marine. Two weakly guarded British convoys, one destined for the
West, the other for the East Indies, were surprised at the Azores by a
Spanish squadron and captured. Sixty transports and merchantmen,
1800 troops, and stores to the value of ^£"2,000,000, were brought in
triumph into Cadiz hai'bour. In America the Spaniards also achieved
brilliant successes. Don Bernardo Galvez, Governor of Louisiana, aided
by a Spanish squadron under Admiral Jose Solano, who brought with
him a large force from Havana, made himself master of the course of
the Mississippi, and then conquered Florida. Mobile was taken on
March 14, 1780, and the capital, Pensacola, on May 10, 1781. During
the same period the British were likewise expelled from their settlements
on the Bay of Honduras.
The failure of the great expedition for the invasion of England in
the summer of 1779 led to bickerings and disputes between the two allied
Powers. The chief object for which Spain had plunged into hostilities
was the recovery of Gibraltar, but in this the French showed little
interest. In November Florida Blanca appears to have received indirectly,
through Feman Nunez, the Spanish envoy at Lisbon, information that the
commander of a British squadron in the Tagus, Commodore Johnstone,
had hinted that the British Government might be willing to purchase
the friendship of Spain by the cession of Gibraltar. On such slight
grounds a clandestine negotiation was set on foot. The agent was an
Irish priest, Hussey by name, formerly chaplain to the Spanish embassy
in London, who put himself in communica:tion with Richard Cumberland,
private secretary to Lord George Germain, Secretary of State for the
Colonies. In his turn Cumberland conveyed to Lord North and Lord
George Germain the confidential information that the Spanish Govern-
ment in consideration of the restitution of Gibraltar would abandon the
French alliance and give ample compensation. It was a critical moment
both at home and abroad, for Rodney had not yet relieved Gibraltar,
and the Ministers, without committing themselves to any definite
proposal, determined to send Hussey back to Madrid, with a letter
addressed to himself by Germain, and permitting him in perfectly
general terms, should opportunities occur " of conversing with persons
in high trust and office," to state " that any opening or overture on the
part of Spain towards a pacification so essential to the interests of both
Kingdoms... will be entertained with all possible sincerity and good
faith." Gibraltar was not even mentioned. Hussey reached Madrid on
December 29, 1779, and had a series of interviews with Florida Blanca.
Finally, he returned with a letter in Florida Blanca's own hand, which
had been approved by the King, together with confidential instructions.
On January 29, the secret agent arrived once more in London, where the
3T8 Mission of Cumberland. — The Armed Neutrality. [i780
subject was discussed at four successive cabinet councils. The question
of compensation, should Gibraltar be ceded as a condition of peace, was
fully considered. In exchange for the coveted fortress was demanded
the island of Porto Rico, and the fortress and territory of San Fernando
de Omoa, an indemnity of ^"2,000,000 in addition to payment in full for all
the stores and artillery, rupture with France, assistance to Great Britain
in the reduction of the rebels to obedience, or at least a solemn engage-
ment not to furnish succour to them. These conditions are interesting as
showing the high value that was attached to the possession of Gibraltar.
As a matter of fact, they were never submitted to the Spanish Govern-
ment. In an interview, indeed, which was granted to Hussey, one of
the Ministers, Lord Stormont, declared : " if Spain would lay before him
the map of her empire, to take his choice of an equivalent, and three
weeks to fix that choice, he should not be able in the period to find in
all the dominions of Spain what in his judgment would balance the
cession of Gibraltar"; and he was further informed that Lord North
and all his colleagues disavowed having given Commodore Johnstone
any authority for the statement advanced by him. Deeply chagrined
Hussey betook himself to Cumberland, who, expressing his own willing-
ness to go on a special mission from the Cabinet to Madrid, persuaded
Hussey to write to the Spanish First Minister (February 13, 1780) that
the British Ministers, while unwilling to assent to the cession of Gibraltar
as an indispensable article of a treaty of peace, might be willing to treat
upon the basis of the Treaty of Paris under the title of Exchange of
Territory. In this letter Hussey went on to express his personal belief
that, though he had no authority written or verbal for his assertion, the
British would cede Gibraltar on terms. This letter, after being read by
Lord George Germain and Lord Hillsborough, was sent, and, vague
though it was, led to a continuance of negotiations, and finally to the
sending of Cumberland on a confidential mission to Madrid. He resided
there for eight montl;is, and had frequent interviews with Florida Blanca.
The Spanish Government, however, insisted on the cession of Gibraltar
as a previous and indispensable article of peace ; and an insuperable
obstacle having thus been placed in the way of any favourable result,
Cumberland was recalled.
While, however, these clandestine and abortive negotiations were
proceeding, Florida Blanca had also been actively engaged in promoting
friendly relations with Bussia, and he lent his support to the action
taken by Catharine II in forming that league of the neutral nations,
headed by Russia, known as the Armed Neutrality, of which an account
has been given elsewhere. He saw that it was a blow aimed at the naval
power of Great Britain.
One eiFect of the Cumberland negotiations was, as was no doubt
foreseen by Florida Blanca, to arouse the French Government through
fear of being deserted by Spain to more vigorous cooperation in the
1781-2] Capture of Minorca. — Siege of Gibraltar. 379
Mediterranean. A great joint expedition was secretly prepared for the
capture of Minorca. The united fleets of 52 sail left Cadiz on July 22,
1781, and were followed by 63 transports conveying 8000 troops under
the command of the Duke of Crillon. The British garrison, taken by
surprise, withdrew into Fort St Philip, which was blockaded. A re-
inforcement of 4000 French troops was despatched from Toulon on
October 16. But as General Murray, the British commander, despite
the shortness of provisions, continued to hold out, Crillon determined
at the beginning of the new year to turn the blockade into a regular
siege. On January 6, a tremendous fire was opened from 150 pieces
of heavy artillery, and a more formidable enemy than the besiegers, the
scurvy, reduced the defenders to a mere handful of effectives. As no
relief came, the Governor was compelled to capitulate, February 5,
1782, receiving most honourable terms.
Encouraged by this success,, the allies resolved to prosecute the war
with all possible vigour. A large armament was despatched across the
Atlantic to complete the conquest of the West Indies. Island after
island was captured, and hopes rose high that these successes would be
crowned by wresting Jamaica from the hands of the British. The
splendid victory, however, gained on April 12, 1782, by Rodney over
the French fleet, restored British naval supremacy in western waters,
and saved Jamaica from the threatened attack. To the still more
determined attempt made to gain possession of Gibraltar, reference is
made elsewhere. There is scarcely a more glorious page in the military
annals of England than the defence of the " Bock " by Eliott and his
unconquerable garrison. The utter failure of the grand attack of
September 13, 1782, and the destruction of Chevalier d'Ar9on's floating
batteries, proved a crushing blow to Charles III, who had been led
to believe in the certainty of success. Even the faint hope that lack
of munitions and supplies might compel surrender was dissipated, when
in tempestuous weather (October 10) Admiral Howe succeeded, by sheer
superiority of seamanship, in eluding the far larger fleet under Admiral
Cordoba, which was drawn up at the entrance of the Straits to dispute
his passage, in bringing his transports safely into the harbour of the
fortress, and in repassing the Straits without being forced to an
engagement. This brilliant exploit rivalled that of Rodney in the first
year of the siege.
Meanwhile, negotiations both direct and indirect had been in progress
since the late spring of 1782 between Great Britain and the members of
the hostile coalition. The negotiations of which Paris was the centre,
and the French Minister Vergennes the active agent, it is unnecessary
to follow here. The rapid changes of ministry in England during this
period and the obstinate insistence of Charles III upon inadmissible
conditions rendered a speedy settlement of the differences between Great
Britain and Spain impossible. Their negotiations were carried on at
380 Negotiations for peace. Difficulties about Gibraltar. [i782
Paris by the two ambassadors, Fitzherbert (afterwards Lord St Helens)
and the Count of Aranda, and later (September) in London also whither
de Rayneval, the confidential secretary of Vergennes, was sent over to
treat directl/with Lord Shelburne (now at the head of the Government)
himself. The demands of Charles, who was elated by the successes of the
Spanish arms in Florida and Honduras, and by the capture of Minorca,
and who believed that Gibraltar was on the point of being taken, were
exorbitant. He asked for the cession of Florida, all the British settle-
ments on the Gulf of Mexico, the Bahamas, fishery rights on the shore
of Newfoundland and, last and most important of all, he demanded
Gibraltar. In compensation for Gibraltar and Minorca, he offered to
hand over to Great Britain, Oran and Mazarquivir on the African coast.
Aranda was instructed to say, "if England desires peace, this is the
only means of procuring it : since the King, my master, from personal
as well as political motives, is fully determined never to put a period
to the present war, till he shall have acquired Gibraltar either by arms
or by negotiation." But Shelburne, though ready for considerable con-
cessions, well knew the exhausted condition of the Spanish treasury,
and in the matter of Gibraltar he was immovable. His reply to
Rayneval was not less explicit than the demand of the Spanish King :
"Gibraltar being actually in the possession of George III cannot be
a subject of discussion." Month after month, the defiant fortress
continued to block the way to an understanding. Even the de-
struction of d'Ar^on's floating batteries by Eliott's red-hot shot, and
the subsequent revictualling of the gamson by Howe, failed to make
King Charles withdraw his demand. Gibraltar he must have, though
it should be at the cost of restoring to England all his conquests in
America and the West Indies, with Porto Rico thrown in. But,
whatever compensation Shelburne himself might have been ready to
accept in lieu of " the Rock," English public opinion would not hear
of its surrender. Faced by the coalition of North and Fox against his
Ministry, Shelburne in self-defence had no choice but to stand firm.
Spain ostensibly began to prepare for a renewal of hostilities ; but the
hopelessness of an attempt to fight Great Britain single-handed was no
doubt apparent to Florida Blanca, and by him impressed upon the King.
On November 23, the Minister wrote in a despatch to Aranda : " the
King would like to know what considerable advantage Spain might
derive from the treaty, if, for any reason, she made the sacrifice of
desisting from such a claim," i.e. the cession of Gibraltar. Aranda
gave Vergennes the despatch to read, and the French Minister at once
informed Rayneval at London that Spain would abandon Gibraltar if
she obtained Minorca and the two Floridas. Rayneval replied that
peace could be obtained on these terms and Aranda thereupon, as
Spanish plenipotentiary, gave his adhesion. Both Florida Blanca and
Charles III declared that Aranda, in taking this decisive step, had
1781-6] Peace concluded -Mediterranean piracy suppressed. 381
exceeded his instructions ; but he was the last man to have run the
risk of his sovereign's displeasure for the sake of bringing about peace
with England. The preliminary articles were signed, January 30, 1783.
Possibly the Spanish Court hoped to revive the claim to Gibraltar at
a later stage of the negotiations. The fall of the Shelburne Ministry
(April, 1783), however, dissipated any such expectation, and in Sep-
tember the definitive treaty was concluded. Gibraltar remained British,
and the two Floridas and Minorca passed into the hands of Charles III.
Outwardly, therefore, Spain emerged from this arduous struggle with
the fruits of victory; but it was purchased by the ruin of her fleet
and the serious crippling of her finances.
Nor was this all. The consequences, which had been partly foreseen,
of a policy which lent armed support to the revolt of the American
colonies against their mother country, in due course followed. Insurrec-
tionary tumults and risings took place in various parts of Spanish
America and had to be put down by force. The rebellion in Peru
under Tupac Amaru, a descendant of the Incas, assumed dangerous
proportions. In a short time he found himself at the head of some
60,000 men, but without discipline and badly armed. He was defeated
(March, 1781) by a Spanish force under Don Joseph de Valle, and was
himself taken prisoner.
After the conclusion of peace, Charles Ill's efforts were steadily
directed to an object which had so often before occupied the serious
attention of the Spanish monarchy — the freeing of the Mediterranean
from the Algerian and Tunisian piracies. His aim was to effect by
treaty a result, which arms had failed to accomplish. An amicable
understanding had already been reached with the Moors. Negotiations
had been set on foot at Constantinople, which issued in a commercial
treaty (December 24, 1782), and the way was opened for negotiations
with Algiers, Tunis, and TripoK. By a mixture of threats and bribery,
and the influence of the Sultan and the Moorish emperor, the piratical
Governments were at last persuaded to listen favourably to Florida
Blanca's proposals. A treaty with Tripoli, similar to that with the
Porte, was concluded (September, 1784). Algiers and Tunis were more
obdurate ; but both assented to arrangements on the same lines two
years later (June, 1786). Piracy ceased, and the lands on the Mediter-
ranean coast of Spain, now freed from the fear of raids and depredations,
began to be cultivated and peopled. The bonds of friendship with
Portugal, which had so happily subsisted since 1778, were further
cemented by a double matrimonial alliance between the reigning Houses.
In 1785 the Infant Don Gabriel, third son of Charles III, was married
to Dona Mariana Victoria, daughter of Queen Maria, and Dona Carlota,
eldest daughter of the Prince of the Asturias, to Dom John, second
son of the Portuguese sovereign. Florida Blanca had during this
period to contend against the enmity and obstructions of a powerful
OB. XII.
S82 The last years of Charles. His death. [i786-8
cabal, hostile to his measures of internal reform, headed by the Count
of Aranda, who had now been recalled from the embassy at Paris.
Wearied at last with long years of continuous labour, hurt by the bitter-
ness of the attacks of his adversaries, and feeling himself in declining
health, the Minister now (October 10, 1788) drew up a lengthy memoir
or apology, for submission to the King, in which he gave a full account
of the whole of his administration and concluded by asking his Majesty's
permission on the ground of health to retire. But one of the most
marked characteristics of Charles III was the immovable firmness of the
support which throughout his life he always gave to those who had once
won his confidence. He now refused to accept his Minister's proffered
resignation, and removed from their posts two of his chief opponents,
the Marquis of Rubi, Governor of Madrid, and General O'Reilly, the
Minister of War.
This was one of the last acts of Charles. The deaths in rapid succes-
sion, from small-pox, of his daughter-in-law. Dona Mariana, of her infant,
and then of Don Gabriel himself (October and November, 1788) were a
great shock to him. Shortly afterwards the King fell ill of a fever, and
he died on December 14, in the seventy-third year of his age. Of
Charles it may in truth be said his faults were few, his virtues many.
To assert of him that he was the most capable, intelligent, honest, and
best-intentioned of all the kings who have ruled in Spain since the death
of Philip II, would perhaps be in itself small praise. The best tribute to
his memory is a survey, however brief, of the many reforms, administra-
tive, material, economic and social for the public welfare, carried out or
initiated under his auspices.
The Minister to whom the chief credit is due for the internal
progress of Spain after the conclusion of the war with England is Florida
Blanca. He seized the opportunity of the restoration of peace to push
forward in every department of the national life the system of reform,
which Patino initiated and which Campillo, Ensenada, and Aranda had
each of them striven, not altogether unsuccessfully, in spite of many
prejudices and much opposition, to carry on. Florida Blanca was
fortunate in having at his side so capable an adviser as Pedro Rodriguez,
Count of Campomanes, jurist, historian, statesman, writer, and above
all one of the leading authorities of his day on economic science.
Campomanes, as President of the Council of Castile, gave his whole-
hearted cooperation to the First Minister in putting into practical
shape the projects of reform, which the King had at heart. Francis,
Count de Cabarrus, a Frenchman by extraction, and Joseph de Galvez,
Marquis de Sonora, the conqueror of Florida, also did excellent service
in the departments of commerce and the Indies.
It is not possible to do more than indicate all that was accomplished
for the advancement and prosperity of Spain by the efforts of these states-
men. To relieve the heavy burden of public indebtedness and to increase
1777-88] Reforms of FUyrida Blanca and his colleagues. 383
the revenue by a readjustment and reorganisation of the whole system of
taxation was a pressing necessity. The foundation of the National Bank
of St Charles, with a capital of 300,000,000 of reals (^3,593,750) in
1782 carried out chiefly by the financial skill of Cabarrus, did much
to give stability to the credit of the State. In Catalonia the obnoxious
duties known as the holla and plomos de ramos, a charge of 15 per cent,
on all articles manufactured and on all sales, were abolished. The
corresponding duties in Castile and other parts of Spain — the alcabalas
and milUnes — which were exacted not merely on manufactures and
fabrics, but upon all the necessities of life, were all greatly reduced —
those on food products from 14 per cent, to 2, 3, and 4 per cent. In
place of these oppressive charges there was at first imposed a single tax
of 5 per cent, upon incomes, which it was afterwards found expedient
to graduate, a reduction of one-half being allowed to those who resided on
their own property. At the same time, all restrictions upon the commerce
of the mother country with the colonies were gradually swept away. As
a result of this pohcy, the export of home produce to America was speedily
quintupled, and the imports from America were increased nine-fold.
Every effort was also made to stimulate the prosperity of home industries.
In 1783 a new tariff was brought into operation to check the import of
foreign manufactures, and at the same time skilled artificers from abroad
were introduced to teach the native workmen their craft. Thus the
Government were enabled to start factories for glass-making, and porce-
lain, fine cloth, velvets, leathers, and other goods, and to create profitable
occupations for large numbers of the people. Every possible encourage-
ment was also given to agriculture and means of communication. The
Canal of Aragon, planned in the time of the Emperor Charles V, was
completed from Tadela to Saragossa, enabling a large extent of country
that had passed out of cultivation to be irrigated. Other canals on a
large scale — the Canal of Old Castile to connect Madrid with the Tagus,
the Canal of Guadarama, and others of less importance — were begun,
and likewise proved of great service for irrigation purposes. A practical
school of agriculture was founded near Aranjuez. Attempts were made
at afforesting the bare plateaux of Castile, and to establish colonies in
waste lands in the north of Andalusia. A perfect network of new roads
was constructed, and regular posting between the chief towns established.
Hospitals, colleges, schools, philanthropic institutions, arose on every
side. Mendicity was suppressed and punished, and vagabonds placed in
houses of correction where they were compelled to work, while for the
infirm and aged asylums were provided. The funds for these objects
were largely derived from the confiscated property of the Jesuits and by
charges made upon the revenues of the clergy for what was called " the
pious fund " {fando pio beneficial). Much was done for the codification
and revision of the laws and for securing the prompt administration of
justice. Many abuses were swept away ; a good police system secured
384 General progress in Spain. — Portugal. [1748-88
order in the large towns ; and the rapacity and extortion of officials
checked. All these changes and reforms could not be effected without
friction, or without opposition from those whose privileges or whose
liberties were curtailed. But, on the whole, the result for good rivals
that achieved in an equally short time in any other country ; and in the
history of Spain there is certainly no period which can compare with the
reign of Charles III. Despite the wars against England, with their
disastrous drain upon the finances of the country, the welfare and the
prosperity of the kingdom continually advanced. It was an age at once
of material and intellectual advance. The Universities became centres
for the acquiring and the diffusion of knowledge, and scientific and
literary societies were to be found in aU the chief cities of the land.
Unfortimately, the brighter days which seemed to be dawning for the
Spanish people were not destined to endure. In an absolute monarchy
very much depends upon the enlightenment and character of the
monarch. With the accession of Charles IV the old evils attendant
upon weakness and misrule were once more to reappear, and the destinies
of the country to sink with the moral tone of its government.
(2) PORTUGAL.
(1760-93.)
John V died in 1750 after a long reign of 44 years, marked by peace and
lavish expenditure. The incomings from the mines of Brazil had been
very large ; but they had been wasted in the erection of costly edifices
and in a continual stream of donatives to Rome. As a reward for the
religious zeal, which showed itself in this practical form, Dom John
received from the Pope in 1748, the title of Most Faithful. During the
last eight years of his life this King fell into a state of imbecility, and
the government was carried on by a Regency. He was succeeded by
his son Joseph I, who, though he was 36 years of age, had hitherto
been allowed to take no part in the administration. He had no love
of the details of business, and, though a man of some ability, was
content to leave the practical work of government in the hands of his
Ministers. He was fortunate in finding one capable of dealing with the
difficult task of restoring prosperity and vigour to a country that had
become impoverished, stagnant, well-nigh moribund. Sebastian Joseph
de Carvalho e Mello, after filling the posts of ambassador at London
and Vienna, had been summoned by the Queen Regent in 1750 to take
the Secretaryship of Foreign Affairs. Before he arrived at Lisbon,
Joseph had ascended the throne; but he was confirmed in his office
by the new King, over whom he speedily acquired complete ascendancy.
Carvalho was already 51 years old ; but, though he had had to wait so
long for an opportunity for the exercise of his great abilities, he now
began at once to display an energy, industry, and strength of character
1750-6] Ministry of Pombal, 385
which won the King's unlimited confidence, and secured for the Minister,
until Joseph's death in 1777, the exercise of absolute and autocratic
power. There were no Cortes to dispute his predominance; but he had to
encounter the opposition of the nobility and the Church in bis efforts at
reform, besides the prejudices of the people — and these were no slight
obstacles. One of his first steps, in 1751, was to curb the power of the
Inquisitor. A royal decree enacted that henceforth no auto-de-fi was to
take place, or execution be carried out, without the approval of the
Government. He set to work to put the defences of the counti-y into a
more satisfactory state, by putting aside an annual sum for the^ mainten-
ance of the fortresses, and at the same time did his. utmost to revive
agriculture, and stimulate industries. The streets of Lisbon and other
towns, which had been the scenes of licence and outrage, were efficiently
policed, and offences were sevra'ely punished. The finances were re-
organised, and great economies in expenditure effected. The condition
of the colonies next occupied the Minister's attention. In June, 1755, a
charter was issued incorporating a Company with special privileges for
trading in Maranhao and Grand Pard ; and this was followed by the
establishment of the Pernambuco and Paraiba Companies. A decree
was issued in the same month by which all the native Indians in
Maranhao and Grand Para were declared free ; and Carvalho's brother,
Francisco Xavier de Mendo^a, was sent out as Governor to carry it
into effect.
An awful catastrophe was to interrupt the course of these well meant
efforts at reform. On the morning of AH Saints' Day (November 1,
1755), a great earthquake laid Lisbon in ruins and caused the death of
some 30,000 of its inhabitants. A terrible tidal wave, sweeping up the
estuary of the Tagus, completed the destruction caused by the upheaving
of the ground. The courage and energy displayed by Carvalho were
extraordinary. Working day and night, visiting personally the scenes
of devastation, he issued decree after decree in rapid succession, for the
restoration of order, the tending of the wounded, the burial of the dead,
the provision of necessary food. From this time forward, the trust
reposed by the King in his Minister was practically unbounded. Under
his care and supervision, the city rose from its ashes with handsome
streets and squares, cleansed, improved, and embellished. The old
feelings of amity between England and Portugal were greatly strength-
ened by the munificent donation of ^100,000 made by the British
Government for the relief of the sufferers in the earthquake. In 1756,
Carvalho was made First Minister, and all departments of administration
were placed under his supreme control; while, on his nomination, he was
succeeded as Secretary for Foreign Affairs by, Luis da Cunha. The
establishment of the Oporto Wine Company in September, 1756, which
gave to the company the exclusive right of buying all the wines in a
given district for a fixed price during a certain period after the vintage,
0. M. H. VI. CH. XII, 25
386 Proceedings against the Jesuits. — The Tavoras. [1748-59
was intended to benefit the quality of the wine and the powers. It gave,
however, much umbrage to the English, who, through the trade privileges
granted them under the Methuen Treaty of 1702, had been the almost
exclusive consumers of these wines, and excited such discontent in Oporto
that formidable riots broke out (February, 1767). These were suppressed
with ' great severity;
Carvalho had two great obstacles in his path to absolute autocratic
authority in the State— the powerful Order of the Jesuits and the nobility.
He now set about the task of crushing them both. The conduct of the
Jesuits in America furnished the pretext. The Jesuit missionaries in
the seventeenth century had converted the Indians in the interior of
Paraguay, and had formed a colony, consisting of 31 mission stations or
redudkmesias they were called, which carried on a considerable trade and
by its remoteness had become almost independent. In 174)8, an agrees
ment had been made between Spain and Portugal, by which the latter
ceded the long^disputed territory known as Nova Colonia to Spain, in
exchange for seven of the Paraguay reductiones adjacent to the Brazilian
frontier. The attempt to carry out this compact was resisted by the
Jesuits in 1754-5 by force of arms, and the red/uctiones had to be
conquered by a difficult and costly campaign. The Jesuits, who had on
the Amazon many mission stations, which were also centres of trade,
likewise opposed, as much as they could, the operations of the Maranhao
and Pard Company and the decree of 1755 for the freeing of the Indians.
Hitherto, the Order had been powerful in Portugal and had exercised,
through the royal confessors, great influence at Court. Joseph, however,
placed himself entirely in his Minister's hands, and Carvalho determined
to strike hard. The King's confessor, Moreira, was dismissed, and Jesuits
were forbidden to approach the Court. Representations were made to the
Pope as to the misdemeanours of the Order in America and elsewhere.
Finally, on April 1, 1758, Benedict XIV nominated Cardinal Saldanhaas
Visitor and Reformer of the Society of Jesus in the dominions of His
Most Faithful Majesty, By a decree dated May 15, 1758, the Visitor
ordered the Jesuits to desist thenceforth from trading and commerce,
and suspended them from preaching and confessing in his patriarchate.
The next blow fell on the nobility. On September S, 1758, an
attempt was made on the life of the King. He wsis fired at in his carriage
and wounded. In the middle of December, some of the most influential
members of the Portuguese ai'istooracy, the Marquis and Marchioness of
Tavora and their two sons, the Duke of Aveiro, the Count of Atouguia,
and others, were arrested as the authors of the crime. Thej were strong
opponents of the Carvalho autocracy. A special tribunal was appointed
to try them ; they were condemned to death, and their property was
donfiscated. The sentence was carried out, on January 13, 1759, with cruel
brutality. A great mystery surrounds this summary procedure. Whether
the accused were innocent or guilty is one of those questions on which no
irsg-eo] Expulsion of the Jesuits. — Pombal's reforms. 387
positive opinion can be given. Many people believed in their innocence ;
but CarvaJho succeeded in persuading the King that the step he had taken
was just and necessary, and as a reward for his services he was in June
created Count of Oeyras. The conviction of the Tavoras had meanwhile
served as a pretext for further attacks upon the Jesuits. On the ground
of evidence found in the Tavora papers, Gabriel Malagrida, the confessor
of the Marchioness, and eight other Jesuits were arrested. The whole
Society were accused of being the instigators of, and accomplices in, the
crime. On January 19, a decree was issued for the sequestration of all
their estates; and this was followed, in September, by the expulsion
of the Jesuits from Portugal and from the Portuguese possessions in
Brazil and the East Indies. Malagrida, a half-crazy enthusiast, was
burnt alive as a heretic in 1764.
The Minister, having thus with a strong hand removed opposition
from his path, was able to carry out his policy of reform without further
let or hindrance. His reign was a reign of terror ; spies filled the land ;
the prisons were crowded; but all that a man could do for the welfare of his
country was taken in hand by Carvalho, and carried out with ah unsparing
energy and an administrative capacity and resource that have rarely been
surpassed in the annals of statesmanship. He rebelled against the poli-
tical and commercial dependence upon England to which Portugal had
been reduced by the Methuen Treaty ; but, when attacked by Spain in
1762, he was, as has been related elsewhere, ready to avail himself of
British assistance in repelling the invasion. After the campaign he
retained the services of Count William of Lippe-Biickeburg to reorganise
the Portuguese army and to train a force of 32,000 men on the Prussian
model. The fortresses were also repaired, and a respectable navy of
thirteen ships of war and six frigates was created. In 1769, an attempt
attributed to the Jesuits was made upon Carvalho's life. It was at this
time that the King conferred upon him the title of Marquis of Pombal,
by which he is best known to history.
To recount all the reforms of Pombal would occupy a larger space
than is at our disposal. A brief riswni must therefore suffice. Mention
has already been made of the commercial companies established by him.
He did his utmost to offer facilities for an increase of trade between the
mother country and her colonies, and by shutting out foreign imports
he endeavoured to stimulate the growth of native manufactures and
industries which he set on foot. The distinctions between "old" and
" new " Christians were swept away, and all Portuguese subjects were made
eligible to serve in Church and State. The system of internal administra-
tion was revolutionised, and a crowd of useless and costly petty officials
were abolished in 1761 by a stroke of the pen. The legal machinery
was simplified and made more effective. Education occupied a large
share of the Minister's attention. The expulsion of the Jesuits and
the sequestration of their property necessitated the creation of fresh
CH. XII, 26—2
388 Fall of Pomhal— Maria I. [1VV7-99
educational institutions, and also afforded the financial means for their
establishment. The former Jesuit College at Lisbon was transformed
into a College of Nobles under secular administration, and Pombal
introduced into the Univiersity of Coimbra faculties for instruction in
the Natural Sciences and the latest modern learning; while 837 elementary
and secondary schools were scattered over the land. The ideas and
projects of Pombal were in these matters far in advance of his time ;
unfortunately, they never had an opportunity to take root and acclimatise
themselves, and the fall from power of the great Minister was a fatal
blow to that revival of the prosperity and welfare of the Portuguese
people on which he had spent his best efforts and energies during twenty-
six years. The King died on February 24, 1777 ; and Pombal, who was
now 77 years of age, at once fell into disgrace.
The new sovereign, Maria I, was married to her uncle, who now
became King Consort as Pedro III. Both Maria and Pedro were weak
and amiable, and disinclined to treat the aged Minister with harshness,
but the Queen Mother, Mariana Victoria, resented his treatment of the
Jesuits, and was bitterly incensed against Pombal because of an attempt
that he had made to exclude females from the right of succession.
Through her influence he was ejected from power, and would doubtless
have incurred heavy penalties, but for his vindictive adversary's death
(January, 1781). He was, however, banished to his estates, and died
in 1782. One of Maria's first acts had been to release many great
noblemen and others, whom Pombal had thrown into prison on various
pretexts. The Court was therefore full of his bitter enemies ; neverthe-
less, his policy of reform was not reversed. The Queen was well disposed,
and efforts to promote agriculture and industry, and to advance the
progress of education and learning, continued. The Royal Academy of
Science was founded in 1779, and many judicial abuses were corrected.
In all matters of administration the Queen placed herself in the hands
of her confessor, Ignacio de San Caetano, the Grand Inquisitor, who,
though a religious bigot, was on the whole an enlightened adviser.
In May, 1786, Pedro III died, and shortly afterwards his eldest son
Dom Josd. The second son of Pedro and Maria, Dom John, who was
married to Carlota Joaquina, grand-daughter of Charles III of Spain,
now became heir to the throne. For some time the Queen had been
showing signs of religious mania, and the death of Caetano, following
closely upon that of Dora Jose, completely upset the balance of her
mind, so that she became more and more unfit to discharge the duties
of her office. She remained nominally sovereign until 1792, when
Dom John took upon himself the administration of affairs. He was not,
however, actually named Regent until 1799.
1648-1654] The Dutch in Brazil 389
(3) BRAZIL.
(Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries.)
In the course of the sixteenth century the Portuguese had established
themselves along the whole coast line of Brazil from the Rio de la Plata
to the mouth of the Amazon. The country was divided into captaincies
— hereditary grants of territory, covering about 50 leagues of the coast
and exten<iing to an indefinite distance inland. In 1548 the first
Governor -General was appointed, with the seat of government at San
Salvador (Bahia). Brazil was the first of the European settlements in
America to attempt the cultivation of the soil ; and, in particular, sugar
plantations soon became a flourishing industry. In 1581, Philip II
conquered Portugal ; and Brazil passed under the dominion of the Spanish
kings. The colony now suffered from the apathy and neglect of the new
rulers, and, being especially vulnerable to attack by European freebooters,
sufifered much during the closing years of the sixteenth and earlier half
of the seventeenth century from attacks by the enemies of the Spanish
monarchy, English, French, and Dutch. The French established a
settlement on the island of Marajo in 1612, but were expelled in 1618.
The successful ejection of the foreign colonists (1648) led to the forma-
tion of the State of Maranhao-Par£. The Dutch during this same period
planted a number of trading stations in the mouth of the Amazon and
some way up its main stream, but were finally driven away (1606-24).
The formation of the Dutch West India Company, in 1621, led to
serious effbrts being made by HoUand for the conquest of Brazil. San
Salvador (Bahia) was captured in 1624 by a large Dutch armament, but
was recaptured by a great expedition sent from Spain in the following
year. In 1630, the Dutch directed their attack on the town of Olinda
in Pemambuco and its port, the RecifF, which fell into their hands.
Count Maurice of Nassau, appointed Governor-General in 1636, succeeded
in establishing a great Dutch dominion stretching along the coast from
the Rio San Francisco to Maranhao. He established friendly relations
with the Portuguese settlers, and the colony prospered under his rule.
Maurice retired in 1644 ; in the meantime, the disposition of the Portuguese
towards their foreign conquerors had been changed by the successful
revolt of the mother country against Spain in 1641, and the assumption
of the Portuguese Crown by John IV. The Brazilian settlers rose
against the Dutch, and gradually reconquered the territory that had
been lost. Ill supported from home, the Dutch were finally driven
out in 1654, when the RecifF, their last stronghold, was taken. From
this time onwards, the Portuguese were able to set themselves to the task
of the development of the enormous territory which had now, without
further let or hindrance from foreign aggression, fallen into their hands.
390 Missiotis. Exploration. Mining. [i553-i770
The four centres of settlement in Brazil were Pemambuco, Bahia, Rio
de Janeiro, and, in the interior, Sao Paulo on the central plateau. Of
these the last, founded by the great Jesuit missionary Nobrega, in
1553, was the most vigorous and enterprising. The Paulistas inter-
married frequently with the natives, and their descendants were noted
for their daring activity in exploring the interior in search of gold.
They penetrated as far as the Jesuit rediictiones on the Parana, 1635,
and into the districts to the north afterwards known as Minas Geraes,
because of the gold that was found there. The first discovery of rich
mines was made in 1670 near the head-waters of the San Francisco river
and in 1690 at Sabard. Adventurers now flocked in, both from the
sea-coast and Portugal, and considerable population grew up round the
mines. At first, the mining laws were liberal, but afterwards more and
more restrictions were imposed, export was forbidden, and one-fifth
rigorously exacted as the King's share. A revolt of the emhoahas or
foreign immigrants broke out imder a leader named Nunez Vianna, and
was with difficulty subdued in 1709. A little later, there was a further
rebellion in Pernambuco against the rapacity and corruption of the
Portuguese Governors and officials, which was not put down without
difficulty, many concessions having to be made to the settlers by the home
authorities. In the north, the provinces of Pard, Maranhao and CearA
had in 1621 been united as the State of Maranhao and created a separate
Governorship. This enormous stretch of territory included the mouths
of the Amazon and the vast watershed of that river. For a long time
the settlements were confined to the neighbourhood of the sea-coast, the
seat of Government being the town of Pard,. Only very slowly did any
settlements rise on the Amazon or Rio Negro. The Jesuits, under the
leadership of the famous Padre Antonio VieiTa, established a number of
mission stations in the interior, and at the end of the third decade of
the eighteenth century they had made their way far up the river Solimoes
and Negro. They gathered the Indians together into villages, aldeas, and
with their aid cultivated the soil and carried on a considerable commerce.
Meanwhile the hunting for gold had led to discoveries on the head- waters
of the Madeira and the Paraguay, and to the foundation of the two new
provinces of Cuyabd, and Matto Grosso. In 1729 came the further
discovery of diamonds in northern Minas. So immense was the yield
that it is said that, between 1730 and 1770, more than 5,000,000 carats
were taken from the district. This output, unequalled in the world at
that time, was a source of immense profit to the Portuguese Crown.
In the south events had not moved so smoothly. Spain had
neglected to occupy the north bank of the Rio de la Plata, although she
claimed its possession as falling to the west of the boundary betwefen the
Portuguese and Spanish spheres as defined by the Treaty of Tordesillas.
But this district was also claimed by Portugal, in whose early maps this
portion of the South American continent had been placed eight degreed
1680-1777] Boundary disputes in the South. 391
to the eastward of its correct position. In 1680, the Portuguese planted
a fort and settlement, called Colonia, right opposite Buenos Ayres. It
was captured by the Spanish Governor; but it was restored by the
influence of Louis XIV, and finally ceded definitely to Portugal by the
Treaty of Utrecht. The Portuguese retained possession of this coveted
outpost, which was valuable as a centre of clandestine trade, with one or
two short intervals until 1777. In the years 1710-11, during the War of
the Spanish Succession, two daring attacks were made on Rio de Janeiro
by French expeditions. In the latter year it was captured by Admiral
Duguay-Trouin, and had to pay a heavy ransom.
The importance of Colonia was greatly diminished by the founding,
in 1726, of Montevideo ; and in 1737 a Portuguese force was sent to
capture it, but failed. It was at this time that the Portuguese, for the
protection of their southern frontier, fortified the only entrance to the
series of great lagoons which skirt this part of the coast. This fort was
the beginning of the city of Kio Grande do Sul.
An efibrt was made, in 1750, to settle all disputed boundary claims
between Spain and Portugal on the principle of uti possidetis, and it was
arranged that seven of the Jesuit reductiones in the interior should be
given in exchange for Colonia. But the Indians strenuously resisted this
attempt to hand them over to new masters. Colonia was, accordingly,
not surrendered, and in 1761 the outbreak of war in Europe reopened
the whole question. A strong army despatched from Buenos Ayres
took possession both of Colonia and Rio Grande (1763). By the Treaty
of Paris Colonia was given back to Portugal, but Rio Grande was
retained by the Spaniards. In this diplomatic surrender, however, the
inhabitants refused to acquiesce. They carried on fierce guerilla warfare
with the intruders, gained strength year by year, being aided by the
Paulistas from the interior, and finally, in 1775, succeeded in recapturing
the town of Rio Grande, and driving the Spaniards out of their
conquests. When the news of these events reached Madrid a great
expedition was despatched to recover the lost ground. Santa Catharina
was taken, and preparations were made for an invasion of southern
Brazil in force, when the resolve of Spain to join France in supporting
the revolted American colonies against Great Britain led to a change of
attitude towards Portugal. A treaty was signed at San Ildefonso in 1777,
by which all disputed questions between the two Peninsular Powers with
regard to their frontiers in South America were amicably settled.
The interval between these two treaties of 1750 and 1777 covered
the period of the Ministry in Portugal of the Marquis of Pombal. At
the time of his accession to oifice nothing could have been worse than
the administrative and economic condition of Brazil. The policy of
the mother country towards its great colony was narrow and restrictive.
No trade was permitted except with Portugal, and this was hampered by
manifold restrictions. Corruption among the officials, high and low, was
392 PombaFs reforms.-Movement for independence. [1753-I822
universal. Justice was an affair of bribery, and the industrial develop-
ment of the country was at a standstill. The Brazilians were gradually
learning to regard Portugal as their enemy, and to nourish a deep feeling
of resentment against the treatment they received. For a time this
inimical attitude io all things Portuguese was changed to a more friendly
one by the energetic efforts of Pombal to reform abuses in Brazil as well
as at home. He did his utmost to encourage commerce, agriculture, and
industry. Corruption was sternly dealt with and suppressed; As has been
already told, charters were granted to trading companies. A decree
was issued in 1753 forbidding the enslaving of the Indians, and en-
couraging intermarriage with them. Lastly, in 1759, there came the order
for the expulsion of the Jesuits and the confiscation of their property.
Under Pombal's wise administration the revenue from the mines was greatly
increased, and, despite the hostilities in the south, commerce and pros-
perity began to make a real start in many parts of the country. With the
great Minister's fall this promise of better things speedily vanished. The
old abuses crept back and with them the desire for freedom from political
dependence on a distant and selfish mother country began to make head-
way among the more ardent spirits of the cultured class. It was fomented
by the declaration of independence of the United States, which set an
example, and gave an impulse, which was to bear fruit at a later date.
How the Portuguese royal family were compelled in 1807 to take refuge
at Rio, is related in another volume. It was an event which profoundly
affected the relations between the colony and the parent State, and caused
the severing of their political ties to be effected (in 1822) after a quite
different fashion in the case, of Brazil from that of the armed revolts
which led to the establishment of the . Spanish colonies as a series of
independent republics.
393
CHAPTER Xin
GREAT BRITAIN.
(1756-93.)
(1) WILLIAM PITT THE ELDER.
The Seven Years' War, the military events of which have been
recorded in other chiapters of this work, brought about two results of
universal historical significance. England, after her victories over
France beyond the confines of Europe, now appears as unmistakably the
foremost colonial Power. For America was wrested from the French and
their power in India broken. The command of the seas lay in the hands
of Great Britain, and even a Napoleon was not able to take it from her.
Next, in the old world of Europe the little kingdom of Prussia had
successfully held its own in the face of a strong coalition. Both of the
old military Powers, France and Austria, had been its opponents in the
field, and a few other States, Russia and Sweden, were ranged by their
side. English help was mainly indirect and consisted, from the Prussian
point of view, chiefly in occupying hostile activity at remote points and
in supplying subsidies. Relying almost entirely on her own resources,
Prussia carried on this struggle under her gifted King, who, with equal
courage and tenaeity, daring and prudence, overcame all dangers and
proved to the world that Prussia's ambition to be counted among the
Great Powers could no longer be arrested.
With England's share in bringing about these results the name of
William Pitt is inseparably associated. In him the French recognised
their most dangerous adversary. In the archives of the Foreign Office
in Paris is a report of the year 1783 in which a government official
points out the dangers that would arise for France if she should remain
without sufficient warlike preparations on land and sea and confine
herself to a passive attitude. "She will be what Lord Chatham
wished her to be : a Power of secondary rank limited to the Continent
of Europe." And Frederick the Great, who found his best ally in Pitt,
calls him "a lofty spirit, a mind capable of vast desijgns, of steadfastness
in carrying them into execution, and of inflexible fidehty to his own
394 Pitfs beginnings and qualities. [i735-56
opinions, because he believed them to be for the good of his country
which he loved."
When the War began, Pitt was already a man of forty-eight. His
grandfather, Thomas Pitt, had been in the service first of the old, then of
the new (combined) East India Company, though not above an occasional
connexion with the "Interlopers"; and, by a bold and successful
commercial career, he had attained to wealth and importance. Posterity
has remembered him as "Diamond Pitt," because of the celebrated trans-
actions (which occupied, fifteen years of his life) concerned with the
disposal of a diamond of unprecedented size and beauty, which he sold
— ^greatly to his own advantage — to the E«gent Orleans. He was one
of the earliest of those "nabobs" who invested their imported riches in
English estates and parliamentary seats.
Thomas' grandson, William Pitt, would probably have persisted in
the military career which he had originally chosen in accordance with
his own inclination and natural gifts, had he not been, at an early date
compelled by a gouty tendency in his constitution to relinquish a
soldier's Hfe. From 178^ he was a member of the House of. Commons.
He joined the party of the "Patriots" who gathered round the heir to
the throne and whose intellectual head, though he remained excluded
from Parliament, was Bolingbroke. Pitt grew up in Opposition. He
helped to overthrow Walpdle ; he attacked Carteret ; after he had been
a member of the Pelham Ministry, though not in the Cabinet, he agai'n
went over to the Opposition in 1755, and until the outbreak of
the War remained the most dangerous parliamentary adversary of the
Government.
Pitt's strength was founded on his own personality, and not on powerful
family connexions. From his first appearance in Parliament onwards he
was accounted one of the best speakers. How his contemporaries were
impressed by the flash of his eye, the music of his voice, the noble
bearing of his tall figure— -doubtless the outward dignity of his personal
appearance was no less impressive, even when he rose in the House for
the delivery of his great orations leaning on crutches and wrapped in
bandages. It cannot be denied that the form of these speeches is superior
to their substance ; the energy of the delivery was more remarkable than
the strength of the arguments. But, even so, he was possessed of the
power of fascinating and convincing his hearers. "You don't know,"
Lord Cobham once observed, " Mr Pitt's talent of insinuation ; in a very
short quarter of an hour he can persuade any man of anything."
He presented himself on every occasion as the whole-hearted
champion of nothing less than the true ideals of every Englishman:
t^e interests of the nation, the Constitution, the privileges of Parlia-
ment, the honour of England. And, most assuredly, his whole nature
was pe^"vaded by the moral earnestness which was the keynote of his
speeches. For, beyond all doubt, Pitt was a high-minded patriot ; and, if
1721-eo] Walpole and Pitt. 396
his ambition was bent for power, he was also impelled Jby the conviction
that no other could guide the helm of the State so safely as himself.
In the years of Opposition he had struggled against the great political
evils of the time, or at least against what his contemporaries regarded as
such. No one gave stronger expression to the indignation provoked by
Walpole's system of corruption than Pitt. And just as, a few years
after the accession of George I, the Jacobite Shippen declared the Speech
from the Throne fitter for the meridian of Germany than for that of
England, so, with not less animosity, Pitt, the Opposition leadpr, a few
decades later, asserted of the connexion of England with Hanover,
"that this great, this powerful, this formidable kingdom, is considered
only as a province to a despicable electorate," and adjured the House to
show "that, however the interest of Hanover has been preferred by the
Ministers, the Parliament pays no regard but to that of Great Britain."
When George II ascended the throne of Great Britain, Sir Robert
Walpole stood at the height of his power. At the death of that monarch
the affairs of the State were controlled by Pitt. The two men, as has
been already indicated in an earlier chapter, were wholly different in their
relations both to the Crown and Parliament. Walpole, it is aptly said,
was given to the people by the King, Pitt to the King by the people.
Walpole rose to power, and was supported by the King, as the most
capable man in the Whig party, which under the two first rulers of the
Hanoverian dynasty had the monopoly of political power. When the new
reign began in 1727, it rested with the sovereign whether Walpole should
go or stay. George II decided, after a short hesitation, for his father's
Minister, and Walpole remained. His highest aim being to maintain
himself in the monarch's favour, he was not less ready to please the King
in his foreign policy, by a punctilious consideration for the Hanoverian
electorate, as to satisfy his personal requirements. He drew his support
from above, from the Crown ; but in order to secure his own rule, he
needed to retain the lasting cooperation of Parliament. By means
which would now be condemned, but which were then acquiesced in as
indispensable, he succeeded for a long while in mastering a very trouble-
some Opposition, and in keeping a majority without ever sinking to be
its' tool. In fact the general sentiment declared his rule necessary for
the country. His system was the policy of peace and of the prosperity
which depends upon peace. He was not the originator of what had
become the leading principle of English politics since Utrecht — the
maintenance of peace and friendship with France — but he adopted it
and carried it out. He thus became the historical embodiment of this
principle ; foreign policy always being accounted by him of secondary
importance, while his primary purpose was the development of finance,
commerce, and the colonies. Thus he condemned the Treaty of Hanover
of 1725, because it might lead to a great war, and always remained
disinclined to push matters to extremities. Herein he was, as we shall
396 Walpole, the Pelhams, a7id Pitt. [1721-60
see, the exact opposite of Pitt, the great war Minister, who was resolved
to carry through the struggle to its final conclusion, and not to desist
till victory had been won all along the line. When at last Walpole was
obliged by the wiU of the nation to enter on a war against Spain, it was
precisely this War which caused his fall. For he carried it on with an
insufficient expenditure of force and with indifferent success; Parliament
had little confidence in the bellicose achievements of his Ministry ; and
the actual successes won were not placed to his credit.
Walpole has been called the first Prime Minister in England; but
his position still retained much of the traditions of earlier times. The
Minister rules for the King and can, like him, change his political system.
He leads Parliament and seeks to assure himself of its support ; but he
is not yet the choice of Parliament. William Pitt, on the contrary, is the
first great representative of the new conception of the office of Minister.
He had begun by joining in the Opposition against Walpole; but every
complaint which he brought forward, after all, addressed itself rather to
the system than to the man. In his later years Pitt came to esteem
Walpole far more highly than he had done at first, and indeed to
admire him. To understand Pitt, it will always be necessary to recall
the Administration of Walpole and the contrast between the two great
Ministers, though many years lay between their periods of office. In
the course of this interval numerous men of talent appeared on the
political scene, but no great genius dominated England. Carteret was a
man of great intelligence and signally well acquainted with the problems
of European politics. But, on the other hand, he was neither sufficiently
familiar with the internal affairs of Great Britain (he had never sat in the
House of Commons), nor had he a true insight into the rising importance
of Britain beyond the seas, that is, of the colonies.
Still less deserving of praise is the Administration of the Pelhams,
which, as has been seen, was conducted^ quite in Walpole's way, by
patronage and bribery. The younger, Henry, for some time First Lord
of the Treasury, was certainly a clever business man, with a special gift
for finance. The elder, the Duke of Newcastle, who sat in nearly every
Ciibinet through many decades, from the time of Walpole until after the
great Ministry of the elder Pitt, was necessary to the Government on
account of the number of votes of which he disposed, although his
personal qualities in no way recommended him for great office in the
State. But the long term of his activity in high place, his immense
political experience, his familiarity with routine — all this gave him as a
rule great weight within the Cabinet, and explains how he could be a
valuable fellow-worker even for a man of genius like Pitt. Extremely self-
confident, but with moderate powers of judgment, he had, besides the
merits already mentioned, an immense personal capacity for work; he
was certainly one of the most industrious Ministers whom England ever
had. His business papers, which are now national property, contain,
1672-1760] France and Great Britain, 397
besides countless political despatches, often couched in a somewhat
solemn long-winded style, large collections of various materials to aid
him in finding his way ; and yet historians are always dwelling, surely
with some exaggeration, on his grotesque ignorance! His diligence, his
loyalty, and his blameless personal conduct, make him by no means the
most unattractive figure among the English Ministers of the eighteenth
century. He had a gift for hard work, but no personal distinction ;
he was a man who under superior guidance was capable of rendering
excellent service, but he was himself little fitted for the position of leader.
Thus, for more than forty years, and under three English sovereigns,
Newcastle filled high political offices ; until, at last, weary of his many
burdens and of his many adversaries, he retired, not without dignity,
from public life.
In the great days of Pitt's Ministry, when England's position in the
world had risen to so great a height, foreign policy occupied a much larger
place than home affairs. Since the time of William III it had been
assumed that England and France were adversaries, and in the formation of
alliances it was only necessary to ask who would take the side of England
and who that of Prance. It was also customary to find the Iniperial
Court, that is, the Austrian Power, in alliance with England or — as the
traditional friendship between England and Holland had made it possible
to say from the days of William III onwards — with the Maritime Powers.
For the rivalry of the House of Habsburg with France was still older than
that of England ; it dated from the days of Charles V. The electora,te of
Brandenburg, too, which had now grown into the kingdom of Prussia,
stood on the side of the opponents of France ever since the Great
Elector had in 1672 hastened to succour Holland, when hard pressed
by Louis XIV. Thus, the system of coalitions pour contrebalancer Id
France, as it was expressed in the diplomatic language of the timcj was,
in the eighteenth century, a familiar notion kept up all the more
tenaciously because of a corresponding joint policy on the part of the
kindred Bourbon Courts in France, Spain, and Italy. Temporary
deviations from this Old System, as it was called, indeed occurred. In
Walpole's time England on the whole maintained friendly relations with
France, The year 1725 had seen the Powers of Europe grouped in
unusual combinations in face of a threat of war — the Emperor and Spain
on the one side, the Western Powers on the other; but this position
appeared to politicians so unreasonable that 1725 came to be spoken of
as "the mad year."
Thereafter, England and France once more stood opposed to each
other, especially on account of their interests beyond sea; and in the
War of the Austrian Succession the conflicting Powers of Europe were
seen again in the familiar old grouping. Only in one case had a remark-
able change been carried out. Prussia, under her young King Frederick,
398 Changes in the system of European alliances. [i740-55
had entered upon a wholly new course of action, and her invasion of
Silesia had been followed by a series of conflicts between herself and
Austria; From the year 1740 onwards, the enmity of the two most
powerful German States was as much taken for granted in European
politics as was the old hostility between England and France; and who-
ever ignored it had to learn it to his own cost. Newcastle, in 1748, failed
completely in his attempt to recall Prussia to her traditional place in the
" Old System." An alliance between Prussia and Austria, said Frederick
himself, is quite as inconceivable as a combination of fire and water.
In substance, the policy of Frederick from the end of the Second
Silesian War had been directed to the maintenance of peace and the
security of his own possessions. The chief import to him of the nego-
tiations of 1748 and the conclusion of the Peace of Aix-la-Chapelle was
that by this Treaty he obtained a European guarantee of his recent
acquisition of Silesia. Feeling assured of the hate of Queen Maria
Theresa, who had not given up the hope of reconquering Silesia, he for
eight years sought to deprive her of the chance of renewing the contest
under favourable conditions. But these years of diplomatic efforts for
the maintenance of peace he afterwards himself regarded as having been
wasted and fruitless ; and, declaring the futility of his policy before the
Seven Years' War to be a topic unworthy of the attention of historians,
he left a lacuna in his own historical narrative of his reign.
Hereupon, it gradually became patent that the system' of alliances
maintained up to 1755 — England and Austria on the one side, France
and Prussia on the other — was no longer based on common interests, and
that such was especially the case with regard to Austria and England.
The English Ministers had in view the great colonial conflict with
France, in which it must be decided whether America should belong to
the English or to the French. The Austrian alliance was only important
to England in a continental war in so far as it was calculated to keep
in check the French land forces and to resist any attack by them on
the Netherlands or on Hanover. But this concerned Austria far less than
the new struggle against Prussia. Maria Theresa longed to crush and
cripple the foe who had despoiled her of Silesia; in comparison with this
the antagonism to the House of Bourbon had ceased to be of the same
account as of old. And in a passage of arms with Frederick the English
alliance could be of no great use.
Thus both parties began to look for more valuable allies. Already
in 1749, soon after the Peace of Aix-la-Chapelle, the keen-witted Kaunitz
had recommended his mistress to abandon her old policy. " Inasmuch as
the loss of Silesia cannot be forgotten and the King of Prussia is to be
regarded as the greatest, most formidable and implacable enemy of the
illustrious Archducal House," and as little assistance against him could
be hoped for from the Maritime Powers, Kaunitz recommended an
alliance with France. The suggestion clashed too much with the
1755-6] The reversal of alliances. 399
accepted view to meet with sympathy at once. But, during the ensuing
years which Kaunitz spent as ambassador at Paris, he certainly did not
relinquish it ; and as Chancellor he repeated (August 21, 1755) what he
had said six years earlier as the youngest member of the Conference
of State at Vienna — *' It is' certain that Prussia must be overthrown, if
the illustrious Archducal Hou^e is to hpld its own "-^further pointing
out that with Austria's present allies, the Maritime Powers, this goal
would never be reached. France must be won. His endeavours were
accordingly from this time onwards directed to bringing over France
from the Prussian to the Austrian alliance. For the moment, however,
the idea was too novel to the French Government ; though it was quite
ready to draw nearer to Austria, even to guarantee to ;her security
against external attack, while in the case of an Anglo-French: war
Austria was, like Prussia, to stand aloof. But all this was to be
included in the eixisting system; and the French had no intention of
abandoning their alliance with Prussia.
But, at the same time, England and Prussia were preparing to
approach each other. George II wished to secure Frederick the Greafs
army for the protection of his Hanoverian inheritance in the event pf a
French attack. Frederick, at first mistrustful, ceased to show himself
indisposed to listen to these overtures, after he, had been informed of the
conclusion of an Anglo-Russian Treaty and had seen it carried intq
effect. From Russia and the Empress Elizabeth, who was unfriendly
towards him, Frederick could hope for little good. But now the King
thought that, if he were but in alliance with England, there would be
nothing more to fear from her other ally Russia. In that event, Austria
too, left to herself, would not venture upon a new conflict with Prussia.
The result of these calculations was the Anglo-Prussian Alliance^
or, as it was called, the Convention of Westminster (January 16, 1756)
—purchased, in the opinion of Pitt, by the sacrifice of British rights.
Both the contracting sovereigns undertook to preserve peace and friend-
ship with each other. Each was to prevent his alli^ from any hostile
attempts upon the European territories of the other. Were a foreign
Power, under jiny pretext, to move its troops intp Germany, the two
contracting parties were to join forces to meet them and to maintain
tranquillity in Germany ; for a guarantee of the neutrality of Germany
was the explicit object of this treaty. Accordingly, on the present
occasion the term " Germany," which was officially quite unknown, was
employed instead of that of " the Roman Empire," in prder not to involve
Prussia in an undertaking to defend the Austrian Netherlands.
Both Powers were completely mistaken as to the effect of the new
alliance. While they had wished to secure peace on the Continent, they
brought about war. England and Prussia alike believed it possible tp
enter into the new alliance without dissolving their old ties. TJl^e result
would have been a sort of general European frajternisation. But the age
CB. xm.
400 Convention of Westminster and Treaty of Versailles. [i75e
was predisposed to war, and herein lay the mistake of the political
calculation. France, on the one hand, Austria and Russia on the other,
felt themselves injured and repulsed by the Powers which had hitherto
been their allies. They now found themselves quickly at one. The
Convention of Westminster completed what Kaunitz' diplomacy could
not of itself have brought about. It led to the alliance between Maria
Theresa and Louis XV.
Yet the Convention of Westminster contained nothing by which
France need have felt aggrieved. She had herself already declared that
she did hot wish to attack Hanover. She could not, therefore, regard
as hostile to herself the obligation into which Prussia had entered to
defend the electorate. It was not so much the conditions of the Treaty
which caused annoyance in Paris as the Secrecy with which it was con-
cluded. Frederick tried conciliatory methods, and sought in sundry
conversations to convince the French ambassador, the Due de Nivernais,
of the harmlessness of his Treaty with England. He affirmed that the
new Treaty would change nothing in his relations with France. He
regretted the haste with which he had been obliged to conclude it,
insomuch that a previous communication to France would have been
dangerous, indeed impossible. He even caused Nivernais to open in his
presence the box containing the original documents of the West-
minster Treaty which had just arrived, in order that the Frenchman
might convince himself that there was nothing in them which he did not
already know.
It was all to no purpose. The unpleasant impression was not to
be effaced. The French Court could not pardon the King of Prussia for
allying himself with England, the enemy of France, without having in
any way first asked her permission. A ready hearing was now given
to the Austrian overtures. The Imperial ambassador. Count Starhem-
berg, who was earnestly supported by the Marquise de Pompadour and
by the Abbe Bernis, could, on February 27, inform Kaunitz that France
had no opposition to offer, if Austria were, in alliance with Russia, to
deprive the King of Prussia of his conquests, and that she held out
hopes of subsidies for this object. Further than this, however, the
Government of France did not go; and its consent to any notion of
the dismemberment of Prussia was out of the question.
The Treaty of Versailles, which the two Powers signed on May 1,
1766, was, therefore, of a purely defensive nature. Austria declared
that she wished to remain neutral in the Anglo-French wars and
would renounce any deferice of Hanover. In return, France promised
her aid, in case Austria were attacked by Prussia or by the Porte. No
threat was hiereby intended to the peace of the Continent. King Frederick
received the news of the Treaty of Versailles somewhat indifferently, and
gave a polite answer to the French ambassador who informed him of it.
The Cburt of St James', however, regarded the event with more concern.
1756] Franco- Austrian alliance. 401
Newcastle, never far-sighted, spoke of the unnatural alliance by which
the Protestant Courts were especially threatened. Either a powerful
counter-alliance must now be formed, or Europe would be given over to
the supremacy of France. The remark shows Newcastle's curious under-
valuation of the strength of England, whose marvellous expansion under
Pitt no one, indeed, could have foreseen.
The Peace of Europe was in the end imperilled by the Treaty
of Versailles, but only when it became the starting-point for agree-
ments with an ulterior scope between the sovereigns of the Houses of
Bourbon and Habsburg. Maria Theresa and Kaunitz had had no other
intention from the beginning but to move on towards a joint war upon
Prussia ; and Louis XV and the woman who held sway at his side, the
Marquise de Pompadour, were quite willing to be pressed into this
course. The King's responsible advisers, the very men who but shortly
before had been the most earnest partisans of Frederick the Great,
acquiesced. In June, 1756, an agreement as to the most important
points had been reached, although the Treaty of offensive alliance,
towards which these efforts were directed, had not yet been finally
drawn up. Both Powers were already agreed that Silesia should be
restored to Austria, and Kaunitz also found the French Court well
disposed towards his intention of despoiling the Prussian monardiy of
other provinces, perhaps of dismembering it altogether. France would
support the action of Austria with military and financial assistance. She
would also make no separate peace with England. Austria was, however,
to make over the Netherlands^ — but only after the conquest of Silesia —
to the son-in-law of Louis XV, the Spanish Infant, Don Philip, in
exchange for his Italian possessions ; nor would she raise any objection
if certain parts of the Netherlands should become directly incorporated
with the French State.
Russia, too, was won over to Kaunitz' policy. The expectation
that the Empress Elizabeth would submit to the Treaty of Westminster
and remain the ally of England ended in disappointment. She cared for
nothing beyond the attack on Prussia, and was quite ready to agree
to the Austrian proposal that this attack should be supported bv
Russian troops. She was even ready to exceed the stipulated number
of 60,000 or 70,000 men and to employ the whole of her forces by sea
and land in the war against Prussia.
"Are you sure of the Russians.?" the King of Prussia asked the new
English ambassador. Sir Andrew Mitchell, on May 12, 1756. "The
King, my master, thinks so," was the answer of the diplomatist, who
shared the mistake under which his Government laboured. But to
Frederick this was the key of the political situation of Europe. The
Treaty of Versailles roused no fear in him, so long as English influence
prevailed in Russia. From the beginning of June, however, news had
reached him from different quarters which left him in no doubt that Russia
C. U. B. VI. CH. XIII. 26
402 Critical position of Frederick II. [ivse
was actually planning an attack on Prussia. Hereupon, he at once recog-
nised the full extent of the danger. He now knew that the military
preparations of Russia, which he was meant to believe, and had believed,
were to be undertakenin the interest of England,' were directed against
himself. Th^ situation appeared to him all the more serious, when he
simultaneously learnt of an unusual concentration of Austrian troops in
Bohemia. He resolved to be beforehand with his enemies. Certain
recent historians have refused to be satisfied with the assumption, attested
by Frederick's own words, that he now began the War himself only on
account of the clear impossibility of preserving peace, and have adduced
his political testament of 1752, in which he speaks of the necessity of
extending his dominions, together with the timely commencement of
Prussian preparations in 1756, as evidence that he had from the first
intended to attack and, therefore, did not precipitate the War only as an
act of self-defence: so that it would be rather a case of two attacking
Powers, Prussia and Austria, clashing together. While unable to accept
this hypothesis, or to enter fully here into the arguments for or against
it, we may refer to the discussions which passed between England and
Prussia during the critical weeks of the year 1756. It would be difficult
to see how it could have been possible for the English Ministry to fail to
detect any false play on the part of their ally; But, so far as we can see,
they appear to have had no suspicion. On the contrary, however strongly
they desired the maintenance of peace on the Continent, they unre-
servedly recognised the emergency which threatesned Frederick. They
candidly declared to Miohell, the Prussian ambassador in London, as he
states in his despatch to his King, "that His Majesty is not in the least
to blame if he tries to forestall his enemies instead of waiting until
they carried out their hostile intentions." And Frederick, on his side,
declares to his English frietids in the most emphatic manner that he
has tried every means to maintain peace. His language rises to solemn
heights when he calls on Heaven to witness that there is no other
course by which he may hope to prevent the threatened destruction of
his kingdom except that of forestalling his enemies. "If ever I had had
the intention of injuring that Court and seeking, a quarrel with them,
I could have attacked them' two months ago without giving them time
to prepare for battle. God is my witness that I never thought of it."
This is not the language of a guilty conscience, or, to be explicit, of a
sovereign who is deceitfully betraying the confidence of his ally.
The English, at all events, believed the truth of his words. In any
case, they had to accept the facts as they were. For now the double
charactei: of the approaching struggle was revealed. The maritime war
and the struggle in distant parts of the world, for which they were pre-
pared, would not be all: they were now forced into a continental war.
At the death of Henry Pelham in 1754 his brother^ Newcastle, had, as
has been seen, become First Lord of the Treasury and head of the Ministry.
1756] Loss of Minorca. — Pitt demanded by the nation. 403
But it was a weak and incompetent Government. Corruption and patron-
age, the supports with which it could not dispense, might, in times of peace,
suffice for the management of the House of Commons. But they were
not enough for solving the more difficult problems which the outbreak
of war offered in both the New and the Old World. For this purpose
creative ideas were needed, and Newcastle was not a man of creative
ideas. It was soon recognised that the War had been as ill prepared as
it was iU conducted. The loss of Minorca, and Admiral Byng's with-
drawal (May 20, 1756), produced the most painful impression in England.
A British admiral, after an indecisive action with an opponent nearly
equal in strength to himself, had sailed away with his fleet and abandoned
to the enemy the island he had been sent to defend. The Government
was eagerly bent on laying the whole responsibility on Byng, who was
certainly not free from blame. Nevertheless, the incident could not but
tell unfavourably on their own position. Moreover, the sudden invasion
of Saxony by the Prussian King amounted to another rebuff for the
English Cabinet, which had quite recently been extolling the West-
minster Convention as the infallible means of preserving peace on the
Continent. News from America further embarrassed Newcastle's position.
The fall of Fort Oswego (August, 1756) made it clear that the English
were driven from the territory round the Great Lakes, and that no
obstacle remained to prevent the French from establishing a connexion
between their possessions on the St Lawrence and those on the JJpper
Ohio.
All these events rendered the position of the Cabinet untenable.
Two of its most important members, Murray, now Lord Mansfield, and
Henry Fox, withdrew from the Government. The people of England
had lost confidence in this Ministry of mediocrities, and called for a
deliverer in their need. At this crisis every eye must of necessity have
turned to William Pitt, the man who for twenty years had been one of the
most interesting personalities in the House of Commons, admired and
respected by the people, feared by the Government ; the man who was
never at a loss for the severest rebukes with which to visit the weaknesses
and faults of the Ministers ; but who had hitherto not been granted an
opportunity of proving his capabilities at the head of affairs. The use
of his brilliant and unimpaired energies could no longer be denied to the
State in its hour of stress.
George II recognised that he must give way to the general pressure and
admit the great member of the Opposition into the Cabinet. The influence
of Leicester House, the Court of the heir apparent, the recommendations
of the King's most intimate counsellor, his mistress Lady Yarmouth — all
worked together to force the reluctant sovereign to call in the dreaded
Commoner. Personally, he expected little good from him: "Pitt will
not' do my business," the King is recorded to have said, presumably
referring to the care for the interests of Hanover which always lay so
cH. xHi. 26 2
404 Pitfs first Ministry^ [i756-7
near to his heart. But the crisis was serious, and for the first time in
English history the sovereign found himself compelled to accept as
principal Minister a politician personally odious to him.
When it had been decided to summon Pitt, the composition of the
Cabinet still offered very great difficulties. Pitt declined to sit in the
Cabinet under or even beside Newcastle ; neither would he tolerate
Henry Fox, or anyone else who might threaten his own predominance.
His first concern was to take the entire direction of the War into his
own hands. He consented to allow the office of First Lord of the
Treasury, the occupant of which had ever since the time of Walpole been
regarded as Prime Minister, to be held by the Duke of Devonshire, the
head of one of the first families in the land. Pitt became one of the
two Principal Secretaries of State. Newcastle, Hardwicke, Fox — indeed,
all the leading names of the late Government — disappeared from the
Cabinet. It was an attempt to compose an Administration of new men
and with new principles, to carry on the Government without seeking to
influence the Sections, without patronage or corruption, and to apply no
other standard but that of the interests of the nation.
The attempt failed. Pitt's first Ministry lasted no longer than four
months (December, 1756 to April, 1757). But even in this first brief
period it is unmistakable that Pitt's action was informed by a grand and
unbroken impulse. We see him indefatigable in action, but at the same
time always keeping in view the political situation and its needs as a
whole, ever calculating and planning, reviewing the chances and dangers
of impending struggles on the Continent and on the high seas, in
America and in the West and the East Indies. We see him endeavom*-
ing, by means of more sympathetic forms of intercourse, to establish
more friendly relations with the colonial Governments than had hitherto
been customary — doubtless in the main with no other intention than
that of stimulating the colonists to increased efforts for the objects of
the War. We see him preparing and setting in motion the despatch of
armies and fleets, while at the same time taking steps for the introduction
of important measures concerned with the home affairs of the country.
We see him directing la haute politique, successful in winning the
personal confidence of his ally, the King of Prussia, and contriving
to maintain peace with Bourbon Spain while maturing plans hostile to
Bourbon France. Yet, for the present, we are still in the region of
projects, attempts, designs only half begun — sufficiently significant for us
to recognise ex ungue leonem, but not important enough in their actual
effects and results to need further discussion at this point.
In spite of what he had already achieved, Pitt's position was not
yet assured. It could not but be threatened, so soon as the national
belief in him, which alone had raised him to power, began to waver.
Such was the effect of the further developments connected with the case
of Byng, The unfortunate Admiral, who had been responsible for the
1757] Execution of Byng. — Dismissal of Pitt. 405
loss of Minorca, was condemned to death by Court-martial. .The
King was ready to yield to the demand of public opinion, merciless
in a case of neglect of duty, which the Court declared this to be. But
the Court itself had recommended mercy, inasmuch as the Admiral's
conduct was attributable, not to cowardice or disaffection, but to an error
of judgment. The King laid the sentence before the highest judges in
the kingdom for revision, and they upheld it. The sovereign would
now have been very glad if the Minister had advised the carrying
out of the capital sentence. But Pitt recommended mercy ; although,
in view of the popular feeling, he did not absolutely insist upon this
course. On March 14, 1757, Byng was shot.
When the question arose of the appointment of a Commander-in-
chief for the Army of Observation established in Germany for the
protection of Hanover, the Duke of Cumberland, the victor of CuUoden,
was proposed by the wish of the King of Prussia. George II was
willing; but Cumberland, anxious for the security of his laurels, was
apprehensive that the necessary military and financial support might
not be afforded him under Pitt's Ministry. For Pitt, who was during
these months suffering from gout, which plagued him throughout his
life, seemed to the Duke to be a sick man, and moreover little interested
in the conflict on the Continent. Cumberland, therefore, made Pitt's
resignation the condition of his own acceptance of the command in
Germany. For George II, however, all other considerations fell into
the background when Hanover was in question. Marshal d'Estrees was
marching towards the Lower Rhine, and Cumberland's departure could
not be delayed. He demanded the dismissal of Pitt, and the King
granted his wish (April 6, 1757). It is not coiTect to assert that Pitt
was thrust from ofBce by the opposition of the great Whig families.
Only so much is true: that, without the support of those powerful
groups, even Pitt with all his popularity was unable to form a strong
Grovemment, that is, one which would not fall to pieces in the face
of adverse circumstances.
The interregnum of eleven weeks which elapsed between the first and
the second Ministry of Pitt revealed to the world the fatal confusion
among EngUsh parties. In the circumstances, no other result could
follow except the return of William Pitt as the one man in whom the
country could find its preserver in the hour of need. "I know that
I can save this nation and that nobody else can," was Pitt's often quoted
proud remark. Devonshire, still the nominal head of the Government,
Newcastle, indispensable on accoimt of his parliamentary following, the
formidable orator Henry Fox, who was much more concerned with an
ample official income than with the exercise of power, the aged Carteret
(Granville), the famous jurist Lord Mansfield — all of them were summoned
and treated with, before the King finally reached the conviction that he
could form no Cabinet of which William Pitt was not the actual leader.
406 Pitt resumes office with Newcastle. [ivsV-ei
Thus was the Newcastle- Pitt Ministry formed^ a kind of alliance between
the great Whig nobility and its henchmen, and the great orator and
statesnjaii , upheld by the people. Newcastle, as First Lord of the
Treasury, undertook the management of home affairs. Pitt no longer
refused to act ^ith him, provided that he would place the national resources
at his colleague's disposal fot the purposes of foreign policy and the War.
For in this sphere Pitfs rule was absolute. Indeed, he was considered
the actual head of the Government. His personal influence in the
Cabinet was greater than that due to his oflUcei Pitt again became
merely one of the two Secretaries of State. He took the Southern Depart-
ment, which included the Romance nations as well as the Colonies. The
latter were especially important to Pitt at the time of the conflicts beyond
sea. Holdernesse, the Secretary of State for the North, willingly carried
out Pitt's intentions. Yet it was not Holdernesse, but Pitt, in whom
Frederick the Great recognised the mainstay of his alliance with England.
In Pitt's mind, too, the sense of the importance of military affairs
occupied a dominant place — possibly because of his brief period of service
in the army. He intended to be the supreme organiser of war, not
only in diplomatic but also in military matters. As to the Continental
War, there was no difficulty on this head. The Secretary for War
(Lord Barrington) was controlled ^ by the Secretaries of State. But as
to the Admiralty open dissensions took place between Newcastle and
Pitt. Pitt seems to have waived his original demand to keep in his
own hands the correspondence with the commanders of the fleets, to the
exclusion of the Admiralty, The regular practice of his Ministry on
this head conformed to custom ; for before his time the admirals were
accustomed to take their instructions direct from the Secretaries of State.
No supersession of the Admiralty was implied by this procedure, since
the instructions were approved by the Cabinet of which the First Lord
of the Admiralty was a member; so that there was nothing unconsti-
tutional in their reaching the Commander of the Fleet after being
drafted by the Secretary of State and merely signed by three Admirals.
Pitt was in the position of being sole author of these instructions, simply
because the direction of the Cabinet lay entirely in his hands. With'
perfect justice, therefore, he could declare in 1761 that he had never
issued orders in disregard of the chiefs of other Departments.
Owing to Pitt's personal Authority these other chiefs, his colleagues,
wholly confined themselves to administrative work without decisively
cooperating in the determination of policy. In this way there was still
employment enough for them. The services, for instance, of Newcastle to
the English nation in these four years 1757 to 1761 lie in the fact that as
First Lord of the Treasury he skilfully and industriously supplied Pitt
with the means for his conduct of the wars in progress in all parts of the
world. And Pitt was hard enough to please, tlhd troubled himself little
about the cost of his military espeditioris. The National Debt rose in
l757-6i] Military and naval undertaldngs. 407
these years from ^"70,000,000 to ,£'150,000,000. That this was possible,
that the credit of the countiy could bear such a strain, must be also
placed to Pitt's account. The personal confidence of the nation in his
policy provided the Government with the necessary capital. Under the
Ministry of Bute confidence in the Government was wanting, and the
public was no longer so willing as before to takie up its loans.
Lord Chancellor Hardwicke called Pitt's Ministry "the strongest
Administration that has been formed for many years." A modem author
describes it as " an organisation for war which theoretically, at least, could
scarcely be nearer perfection." Its methods and its achievements seemed
to contemporaries equally wonderful. " There has been as much business
done in the last ten days as in as many months before," wrote Newcastle
himself, who in these words unintentionally pronounced the keenest
criticism on the preceding Government, of which he had himself been
the head.
The scale of the undertakings corresponded to this activity of action ;
the number of expeditions, of ships, of troops, was in keeping with the
grandeur of the strategic conception, and with the consistency and the
energy of its execution. That England, for the first time, carried on
alone a maritime and colonial war with France without the assistance of
Holland, seems to call for merely incidental mention. Everything else
was subsidiary in Pitt's mind to the main offensive movement which was
to take place in America. But to that end his other undertakings might
very usefully contribute, as, for instance, demonstrations and attacks on
the French coasts, and also the War in Germany, of which we shall speak
presently. It would be enough if the French by these means were pre-
vailed upon to break up their forces and induced to turn their attention
from the scene on which the main issues would have to be decided.
The particular incidents of the struggle are narrated elsewhere. The
results were nothing less, than that England became the first sea Power
in the world, with whom contemporary France could no longer vie ; that
the Continent of North America became an Anglo-Saxon not a Romance
dominion ; that in the East Indies the power of England rose superior to
that of France. - The result of the War in Germany, too, the establish-
ment of Prussia as a Great Power, is scarcely conceivable without the
Ministry of Pitt. The present is not the place for narrating the cam-
paigns of the Seven Years and the events which occurred on the widely-
separated scenes of war. Our task is to indicate briefly the principles
which guided the English Government and the aims which it pursued.
:England's ally was King Frederick of Prussia. Let us see what
England was to him, and he to her. The Treaty of Westminster
brought the two Powers together. Their common enemy was France.
But, besides her ally, every English Government was obliged also to
consider Hanover, the source of the King's ancestry, However eagerly
408 The Army of Observation. [ivee-s
Pitt had attacked the Hanoverian policy of the earlier Governments, he
could not, when himself chief Minister, decline to provide the necessary
protection for Hanover. Already in his first Ministry he had brought
about the return to Germany of the Hanoverian and Hessian troops
which had been kept in England for protection against foreign invasions.
Their departure was hailed with joy, and it was a popular step when
Pitt, in the Speech from the Throne on September 2, 1756, caused the
King to announce the formation of a national militia "planned and
regulated with equal regard to the just rights of my crown and people."
The return of the German troops was mentioned with the addition,
" relying with pleasure on the spirit and zeal of my people in defence of
my person and realm." Part of the troops sent back were used for
forming an army in western Germany, which was described as the Army
of Observation, and destined, as was publicly stated in the royal Message
of February 17, 1757, for the protection of his Majesty's electoral
dominions, and to enable him to fulfil his engagements with the King
of Prussia.
The Army of Observation, paid for by England, and commanded, in
the first instance, by Cumberland, and later by Ferdinand of Brunswick,
was a most important military instrument, which in the course of time
was not less serviceable to the King of Prussia than to purely Anglo-
Hanoverian interests. Each of the two parties endeavoured to induce
the other to strengthen the Arrtiy of Observation, to which, as a matter
of fact, both Prussian and English troops belonged. It must be
recognised that Pitt, although the Continental War was never his prime
interest, nevertheless did his utmost on its behalf. He steadily en-
deavoured to strengthen still further the resistance offered to the enemy
by his Prussian ally who had saved Hanover, as well as his own country,
by his victory at Rossbach. For this object, a special Treaty was signed
on April 11, 1758, between England and Prussia, and renewed several
times during the ensuing years. "ITie Ring of England pledged himself
to maintain an army of 55,000 men (in other words, the "Army of
Observation " which thus became permanent), and Frederick was further
to receive a subsidy, which in the following year was to be reckoned
at i&670,000. No negotiations or treaties with the enemy were to be
undertaken except by both sovereigns jointly.
It was in this shape that the Anglo-Prussian alliance during the
Seven Years' War assumed practical significance; for Pitt carried it
no further. In particular, he always deferred, and practically prevented,
the fulfilment of one request which Frederick the Great repeatedly made
for assistance on the part of England. This was the intervention of
an English fleet in the Baltic. Frederick desired this movement as a
demonstration against his enemies Russia and Sweden. Communications
were being made on the subject from 1756 onwards. In 1767, Frederick
begs that England will now, accoi-ding to her promise, despatch a
1757-8] No English fleet sent into the Baltic. 409
squadron to the Baltic, to keep Russia in check and prevent her " from
harassing my Baltic Coasts with her ships and galleys." In May, 1757,
the Prussian envoy in London is informed, in reply, that England
will menace Russia with a squadron, should the latter appear likely to
harass the Prussian coast. Frederick expresses his joy at the information,
and adds his thanks to the Secretary of State, Lord Holdernesse, in the
most complimentary terms. But the Russian fleet actually appeared in
the Baltic without any English fleet being at hand. Memel was block-
aded, troops were landed, villages burned down, the country was ravaged,
and every kind of cruelty and horror perpetrated. Similarly, in the same
year, the Swedes were able without let or hindrance to send reinforce-
ments to their army in Pomerania, in order to advance against Prussia.
Frederick had no better success during the campaign of 1758. The
English ambassador, Mitchell, told him in February, 1758, that it would
be impossible for England to provide the necessary number of ships for a
demonstration in the Baltic, because the claims upon the naval strength of
Great Britain were already so numerous in various and remote parts of the
world. Intimations of this sort led King Frederick to reduce his demands,
but without dropping them altogether. Even if not a " formidable " fleet,
they might at least send him a " promenade " squadron, for the sake of
the moral efilect. At last he signed the Convention of April 11, 1758j
without having received the promise of the Baltic fleet.
Whatever may have been the reason of the British Government's
refusal,' it was perfectly justified in laying stress on the enormous and
diverse duties of its fleet in the War with France, and on the difiiculty
of sparing the additional ships, and, what was more, the complement
of men required for an expedition into the Baltic. Moreover, if the
King of Prussia desired a British squadron, in order to threaten his
northern enemies, Russia and Sweden, this opened a new question for
England, who was not at war with these Powers, and was particularly
anxious not to disturb her trade with Russia. Again (although this
reason was not confided to the Prussian King) the local conditions of
the Baltic, and the inadequacy of the English navy for meeting the
special difficulties which had to be overcome in navigating these waters,
had a strong, perhaps a decisive, share in the English refusal of
the Baltic fleet demanded by Frederick. In a word, then, the King of
Prussia was denied the assistance which he so eagerly implored. Perhaps
his heroism may be rated all the higher inasmuch as, thrown back now
on his own military resources, he nevertheless pamed the attacks of the
enemies pressing round him. Nor is our estimate of it much lowered if
we take into account the aid which England gave him by means of her
subsidies and the maintenance of the Army of Observation.
No one recognised more frankly than Frederick the Great that Pitt
was the inspiring force in England's conduct of the Continental War. He
OB. XIII.
410 The English and French American colonies. [i75e-67
had at first watched the Minister's rise to power with suspicion, for Pitt
had been described to him as a brilliant orator, but also as a fault-finder
who canied no real weight. And, when the reports of his ambassador
soon overflowed with praises of the new Minister, Frederick wrote
reprovingly to him that his letters seemed written by " one of Mr Pitt's
secretaries, rather than by an envoy of the King of Prussia." But
before long there was no more enthusiastic eulogist of the British states-
man than Frederick himself. Arid yet, as we have seen already, the
interests of Frederick the Great, though straightforwardly upheld by Pitt,
never occupied the central place in his political' system. To him the
struggle with France, on the sea and in the colonies, was of paramount
importance. The memorable results achieved in this struggle, in America,
in the East and West Indies, are related elsewhere. We must content
ourselves with advancing certain general considerations as to the general
aims and objects pursued by Pitt with regard to, and for the sake of,
the colonies, which may be summed up as Pitt's colonial policy.
We turn, in the first instance, to the American Continent, as the
theatre on which the greatest and most striking results were won, and
which most clearly exhibits the operation of Pitt's own ideas. Leaving
aside Spanish Central America, it was the English and French colonists,
alike inspired by strong tendencies towards expansion, who sought to
bring an ever larger proportion of the Continent within their grasp.
The English occupied the greater part -of the eastern coast ; the French
share consisted principally^ of two blocks of territory : namely, Canada,
the region of the St Lawrence, and, in the widest ineaning of the name,
Louisiana, the valley of the Mississippi so far as its mouth. The natural
course of development therefore was to unite the two blocks and thus form
a French colonial iempire, which should stretch from the mouth of the
river St Lawrence across the region of the Great Lakes, down the course
of the Ohio and of the Mississippi so far as the outlet of this mighty
river into the Gulf of Mexico. But by this development the further
expansion of the English colonies would be arrested. It is only necessary
to review on the map the ring of territories by which the French strove
to surround the English colonies on the east, and to push them back
from the interior, in order to understand the threat, occasionally uttered
on the French side, that the English would be driven into the sea.
The conditions under which the two European nations lived here in
the New World were fundamentally different. The English, in a much
smaller area, had a population about fifteen times as numerous as the
French. But this numerical preponderance was amply counterbalanced
by other circumstances unfavourable to the English. There was little
or no cohesion among the several colonies, and it was all but impossible
to induce them to take common action. They showed attachment and
goodwill to the mother country, because it was in their interest to do
so — but only just so far as such was actually the case. The French
1702-48] English and French colonial rivalry. 411
possessions, consisting, except for a few centres that were beginning
to prosper^ of a thin extended chain of outposts, were well protected
from a military point of view ; but, being entirely a creation of the absolute
monarchy of France, they were administered thence on a perfectly uniform
system. In addition, the French were far more skilful than their rivals in
their policy towards the Indians ; so that the half -savage tribes of the
Redskins usually stood in much greater numbers on the French side
than on the English.
In the Spanish and Austrian Wars of Succession, while France and
England had been at war in Europe, Frenchmen and Englishmen had
also been fighting each other in America. By the Peace of Utrecht
(1713), Nova Scotia and Newfoundland, important countries lying in
front of French Canada, were assigned to England. But the Peace of
Utrecht, as well as that of Aix-la-Chapelle (1748), contained several
ambiguities, as well as omissions, in the definitions of the boundaries and
rights of the two sides on the American Continent, The Peace of Aix-
la-Chapelle, as has been seen, produced disappointmeint in all quarters;
and in Paris the phrase was current: hite comme la Paix. An early
renewal of the War was looked upon as probable. In such cases, indeed,
the French were in the habit of thinking in the first instance of cam-
paigns in the Netherlands and conflicts on the Upper or Lower Rhine.
" For with the French nation," says Ranke, " a land war is always more
popular than a sea war, as being associated with a greater number of
glorious memories." But, on the present occasion, there was no lack of
warning intimations of the dangers at hand beyond the confines of
Europe. The old Due de Noailles, who had served under Louis XIV,
and who was now in the habit of submitting his garnered experiences in
long exposes to Louis XV, from 1748 onwards made the imminent
renewal of war with England almost the exclusive topic of his com-
munications to the King. The fleet ought to be reconstructed and at
once provided with the organisation which it had in the days of the
great Colbert. Six thousand regular troops must be sent to the
colonies ; " Your Majesty may reflect," he adds, as a modest admonition,
"that such a force woiild hardly be sufficient to garrison one of your
Flemish fortresses."
Still more significant is a report to be found in the present French
archives, drawn up so early as the year 1747 by a Ministerial official.
He, too, advocates the encouragement and strengthening of the' colonies
in view of the danger of a new war, and refers with much point
to their want of both money arid men, in order to recommend, in
the first instance, the immediate despatch of a few thousand settlers to
Louisiana. He concludes with a side glance, almost of alarm, at the dis-
quieting development of England's trade and colonies, and at the dangers
which might threaten the position of France in Europe from the further
advance of the English in America. " They would rule the seas through'
412 Imminence of War. — The Indian tribes, [i 748-56
their fleets and the land through their wealth, and America would
fiimish them with the means of dictating to Europe." " France alone,"
he continues, "is in a position to prevent this catastrophe, and France
must do so, for her own sake and that of all Europe."
In England, too, similar anxieties prevailed. From 1748 onwards, a
new war seemed inevitable. It was keenly felt how much had been left
insufficiently defined in the existing territorial relations beyond seas.
The frontiers between British Nova Scotia and French Canada were still
unsettled, and the imperfect deUmitation between the more southern
English colonies and the territories held by the French must inevitably
give rise to fresh quarrels. In America itself hostilities, in fact, scarcely
ceased between 1748 and 1756> that is, between the Peace of Aix-la-
Chapelle and the renewal of war. During those years the French were
engaged in constructing a chain otf forts along the Ohio and Mississippi,
and thus actually bringing about the long apprehended connexion
between Canada and Louisiana, which implied the strategical enclosure
of the English colonies by a long line of military stations from the
mouth of the St Lawrence to that of the Mississippi.
On both sides of the Atlantic, during these years, it began to be
clearly perceived among Englishmen that special measures were required
for checking the threatening development of the French power. In
point of fact, the issue only depended upon making effective use of the
great existing numerical preponderance of the English colonists over the
French. With this object a scheme was earnestly mooted, in America and
in England, for a closer union between the English colonies. The Board
of Trade in London had, on September 18, 1753, instructed the Governors
of a number of the colonies to hold a joint conference with the tribe
of Iroquois Indians, in order to keep them firm to their alliance with
England. And, if possible, the colonies were to conclude an agreement,
among themselves with a similar object. The policy thus suggested by
the Government in London with a view to the Indians became the origin
of a much larger scheme. In a meeting held at Albany, in 1754, the repre-
sentatives of aH the colonies, convinced of the necessity of combining
in self-defence, unanimously resolved to propose a scheme for a close
political federation among themselves. This was drawn up instantly
and accepted unanimously. It contemplated an executive for the United
Colonies in the person of a President-General and a legislature to be
called the Grand Council. The foremost place among the intellectual
authors as well as among the draughtsmen of this scheme was taken by
the distinguished man who afterwards came forward as the spokesman
of the American colonies when united against England— Benjamin
Franklin.
Before Franklin's scheme could be submitted to the Parliament of
Great Britain, it was shattered by the unanimous opposition of all the
colonial Assembles. They were alarmed at the financial burden which
1754^6] Schemes of colonial federation. 413
a joint defence of the new Commonwealth would have laid upon thern^
But the Government of the mother country would hardly have approved
the plan ; for, though ardently desiring the awakening of a military
temper in its American colonies, it had no wish to see them politically
united, inasmuch as such a federation might easily lead to the severance
of the colonies from the mother country — an event always dreaded in
London.
The Board of Trade decided upon a colonial scheme of its own,
according to which commissioners from all the Assemblies were to
determine, in time of peace, the expenditure and measures needed for
military, purposes, in proportion to the capacities of the several colonies.
The Crown was to name a Commander-in-chief for the whole of the
colonial forces. And, in fact, a commissioner, Edward Braddock, was
sent over, with two British regiments. For the rest, however, the scheme
of the Board of Trade had as small a chance of realisation, in face of the
independent attitude of the colonial Assemblies, as the more far-reaching
ideas of Franklin. Not imtil twenty years later was the federation of
the colonies brought about, through the enthusiasm aroused by the new
ideals of freedom and independence in conflict with the mother country.
Things had, however, changed by that time in America ; and the French
no longer held Canada. In the efibrts to establish a federation before
the Seven Years' War, military considerations and preparations for the
conflict with France had the greatest share. A series of schemes was
projected during these years for the same purpose, which aimed at levy-
ing an assessment, common to all, for the joint defence of the colonies —
a kind of legislative enactment which could not be determined by the
colonial Assemblies, but only by the Parliament at Westminster. The
question of the equitableness of such a measure was, however, not yet
decided, although it was already manifest that any such taxation by the
British Parliament would call forth fierce resistance from the Americans.
In other words, if already at this date, when the French were stiU
threatening the rear of the English colonists, it was impossible to carry
out such a taxation, though intended only for the purpose of military
defence, there is no difficulty in understanding how the attempt of the
mother country to effect it, when the danger from France had been
removed, became the cause of the historic conflict which resulted in the
assertion of American Independence.
In truth, the Government of the mother country had a difficult task
before it when attempting to preserve harmonious relations with the
colonists in America. This task became harder and harder, as during
the course of the eighteenth century the colonists themselves, with a
rapidly increasing population and steady economic advance, grew into a
flourishing and powerful community. It must be remembered that here,
as elsewhere, the principles of Mercantilism governed the system of
414 Colonial difficulties. [1700-6O
administration, implying much control and coercion of the colonies by the
mother: countiy. The Navigation Acts of the seventeenth century were
still in force, by which the foreign trade of the colonies was kept within
narrow bounds ; and there were corresponding restrictions on industry.
The cardinal principle was the belief that the possession of colonies ought
•to be a source of revenue. On: the other hand, the colonies already
possessed a considerable share of self-government and legislation of their
own. The Governors, as representatives of' the King, often found their
seats thorny, often played a rather ignominious part in the Assemblies,
which, in the matter of military or financial contributions,, treated their
demands as importunate, and looked upon them as unwelcome police
officials charged with the obstruction of industrial activity when it
clashed with existing commercial laws. When, in the period from 1754
to 1766, the frequent Anglo-French strife in America developed into a
war between the two nations, some of the colonies^ at first showed little
inclination to break off their trade with the French in the Hinterland,
and actually continued to supply them with materials of war. Naturally,
the English Government intervened with a stringent prohibition, but
whether with much effect is very doubtful. In any case, instead of
stimulating patriotic enthusiasm, it caused much discontent among the
colonists. Thus the unsatisfactory restrictions which England was
obliged to lay on her colonists for military purposes made bad blood —
and this at a time when, without hearty cooperation on the part of the
colonies, there was no hope of a successful termination of the War.
Under the rule of Pitt, the scene entirely changes. He possessed the
gift of engaging the confidence of the British subjects in the New World
in the same measure as that of his countrymen at home in England,
if indeed not iri a still greater degree. His primary purpose was to
reconcile the colonies and to bring about a ready cooperation on their
part in the struggle which, after all, was carried on essentially in their
interest. The repression of illicit commerce was only continued so fair
as this commerce directly interfered with military ends. Not until later,
when the whole issue of the War depended on it, and when the French
in the large West Indian islands could only hold out by means of the
supplies which came to them from English sources, were the Governors
instructed by Pitt, in a sharply worded circular (August 23, .1760), to
ascertain exactly "the state of this dangerous and ignominious trade"
and bring the culprits "to the most exemplary and condign punishment."
But Pitt's best way of winning the confidence of the colonies was
his system of carrying on the War. For the traditional frontier war
were substituted combined attacks on a grand scale by land and water,
the successful cooperation of British regular troops and the American
militia, of army and fleet, and the effective isolation of the French
colonial possessions as regards all assistance from France by means of
the command of the sea which England's victories had secured to her.
1758-78] Pitt's colonial policy . 416
Thus a series of decisive blows were dealt — Louisburg 1758, Quebec
17S9^— which brought home to the colonists the joyful conviction that
the final goal would be reached, and that they would be completely freed
from their old enemies the French. And to this result they had them-
selves materially contributed. •
But a still greater significance attaches to the fact that Pitt was able
to induce the colonists themselves to take part in the War, when it was
no longer a question of the French in their immediate vicinity but of
those in far distant Louisiana and in the West Indies. In the conquests,
some won, some planned, by Pitt in 1761, when he overstepped the
customary programme of wars with France, the cooperation of the
colonists on the American mainland played a decisive part.
So much as to the actual facts of the period of Pitfs great Ministry.
In order to ascertain his conception of the relations between the mother
country and the colonies, and the lines on which he might perhaps have
developed them, had he remained longer in office, we are obliged to
appeal to his later utterances. In his great speech of September 9, 1762,
on the Preliminaries of the Peace of Paris, Pitt declared himself against
the restoration of the great West Indian islands to France. Yet to
retain them together with Canada would have necessitated a new colonial
policy. How far Pitt would really have been in favour of this — practically
a relinquishment of the Mercantile System^-^is uncertain. It seems
warranted to assume that he had thought of materially lightening the
economic burdens of the colonists, though certainly without granting to
them complete freedom of trade. He would have been as little inclined
to advocate the abolition of the Navigation Acts, or the removal of the
control of economic conditions exercised by the Parliament at West-
minster for the common good, as to champion the independence of the
Americans. On the other hand, he protested energetically against their
taxation by the English Parliament, and went so far towards conciliating
them, during his short Ministerial service as Earl of Chatham under
Grafton (1766-8), that he was called the " Father of America." And it
is true that he had a full understanding of their complaints in the sixties
and seventies. The rights of the Americans were among the favourite
questions of which he never wearied during the course of his whole
political career. Thus, there is ground for believing that he was not
averse from a federal connexion between the mother country and the
colonies. In 1766, he drew up the draft of a Ministry in which appears
the new office of " Secretary of State for the American Department," and
the holder of it was to be "Mr Pitt." He had further considered the idea
of a representation of the colonies in Parliament, and among the Chatham
papers a memorandum has been found on the number and the proportion
of votes which should be assigned to the several colonies, although it is
not quite certain how far this may have been a plan of Pitt's own. And,
lastly, when on April 7, 1778, the death-stricisen Lord Chatham by a
OH. XIII.
416 Accession of George III. [1714-60
final effort raised his voice to protest once more against the independence
of America, what that voice expressed was not the self-will of a ruling
people clinging to its sovereign power; rather, his speech may have
sounded like the cry of a father who cannot bear that the children whom
he has loved and reared to manhood should despise the paternal pro-
tection and seek to renounce him.
England now stood at the height of success, and WiUiam Pitt at the
climax of his fame, for, by Englishmen and foreigners alike, the conr
quests won were regarded as being in reality his. The foremost minds
of the age were agreed in their admiration of Pitt. " England," said
Frederick the Great, " has long been in travail and has suffered a great
deal to produce Mr Pitt, but she has certainly brought forth a Man."
Voltaire, when about 'to put forth an edition of the works of the great
Corneille, begged for the honour of being allowed to place the name of
Mr Pitt at the head of his list of subscribers. A French nobleman who
had fought against England in India and had been sent a prisoner to
London declared that, since he had left Europe five years before, he had
become "historically acquainted with but two men in this world, the
King of Prussia and Mr Pitt." And yet the position of the great
Minister was no longer the same as in the days of the victories in Canada
and Bengal. On October 25, 1760, George II suddenly expired, at
the age of nearly seventy-seven. He was succeeded by his grandson
George III, a young man of twenty-two. The change of sovereign was
in many respects of great importance. The young King was naturally
bom to an easier position than that of his two predecessors. They felt
more at home in Hanover than in England, and their foreign policy too
readily, and repeatedly, assumed a Hanoverian bias. In former daysj
the people had accepted the succession of the House of Brunswick-
Liineburg as a lesser evil than a Stewart Catholic reaction ; but their
hearts had not gone forth to meet the son of the Electress Sophia when
he landed on English soil.
George III had been bom and bred in England. The electoral hat
of Brunswick-Liineburg had fallen to him together with the crown of
Great Britain, but his affections did not draw him across the sea to the
home of his ancestors. He never visited Hanover. The world was to
recognise that he was different from his predecessors. Entirely on his
own impulse, he had added a sentence to his first Speech from the
TTu-one. " Born and educated in this country, I glory in the name of
Briton." In fact, the national mistrust of the first two Georges on
account of Hanover had now, in so far as it was attached to the person
of the monarch, definitively passed away. The Stewart Pretender had,
in the meantime, forfeited all support in England, and the name of
Jacobite lost its terrors for the Government.
And there were other points in which the new King diffei-ed from
his predecessors. The period 1714 to 1760 had derived its characteristics
ireo] Views of the young Kin^ and Bute. 417
from the rule of the Whigs. The King governed with them and
through them. The sovereign himself was no longer so prominent as
had been the case in the days of William III and Anne. More is heard
of Townshend and Walpole, of Carteret and Pelham, thaii of George I
and II ; while the personal influence of the King sank completely into
the background dui-ing the popular Ministi-y of Pitt, allied by marriage
with the Grenvilles, one of the greatest of the Whig families.
The young George III was inspired by an ambition to rule in reality,
and not merely bear the name of King. His mother, the widowed
Princess of Wales, had imbued him with this conception, and her
favourite, the Scotchman Lord Bute, had instructed him in the politics
of the time with the same intention. Bute himself was a man of varied
scientific acquirements and aesthetic interests, though scantily gifted for
the conduct of public affairs. After the young King's accession he came
forward to announce the royal views, almost as a kind of middleman
between George III and his Ministers. Whether the King from the
begiiming felt the power and popularity of Pitt oppressive and sought
to check it, can scarcely be ascertained. At all events, it was obvious
that, so long as the War lasted, Pitt's genius could not be dispensed
with. And, as the King at once showed himself inclined to peace, the
thought cannot have been far from his mind that Pitt might be made no
longer indispensable, and might perhaps even be removed. In his first
speech to the Privy Council, shown to none of the Ministers beforehand,
the King spoke of the " bloody and expensive War " — words which were
considered by those who heard it as an invidious expression aimed at
Pitt. The latter — though only by means of excited explanations lasting
for hours — contrived to have the expression softened in the printed
speech into " an expensive but just and necessary War." In the same
speech the King had already spoken of the securing of an " honourable
and lasting peace" — words which must have seemed still more objection-
able to Pitt, in view of the impression they could not but create in
Frederick the Great, since, according to the terms of alliance, neither of
the allies was to conclude a peace without the other. He succeeded in
inserting in the printed speech the words " in concert with our allies."
Almost too much honour is axjcorded to George III and Bute,
when this little incident is treated as if two radically different systems
of policy had here come into conflict. The King had no such definite
programme; and his opposition was rather that of a dilettante in
politics to a great statesman. Nothing can really be argued from the
incident, except that Pitt's position under the young King was no longer
so strong as under the old. This was made clearer in a few months, when
Bute had to be admitted into the Cabinet, as Secretary of State, in the
place of Holdemesse, who retired, possibly for this very purpose.
Though Pitt was resolved only to conclude a peace which should
ensure the conquests of the War to England as permanent possessions, his
C. M. H. VI. CH. XIII. 27
418 Peace negotiations broken off by Pitt. [i76i
hope of accomplishing this at some time late in the summer of 1761
seemed to have vanished again. The negotiations, which have been
detailed elsewhere, had temporarily assumed a hopeful aspect. Pitt and
Choiseul, the leading statesmen on the two sides of the Channel, were
■working to bring about an accommodation ; but naturally the difficulties
were not slight. The consideration of the allies on both sides was the
first and permanent obstacle. So far as Prussia was concerned, Frederick
had certainly every confidence in the proved friendship of Pitt ; but now
he began to be suspicious. He was willing that England should keep aU
her conquests ; but he did not want, as he put it, to " pay the piper."
In other words, he was determined not to sacrifice one foot of territoiy,
notwithstanding the unfavourable position in which he found himself.
Nevertheless, it was not this which wrecked the negotiations, but the
intervention of France in the Anglo-Spanish conflict. While Pitt merci-
lessly sought 1 to utilise the English victories to the full for the humiliation
of France, for the destruction of her commerce and fleet and the ruin'
of her colonial dominion, Choiseul was playing the game of diplomacy
merely as a blind to his adversary, until he had secured an ally in the
kindred Bourbon kingdom of Spain ; then he would lay down the pen
and take up the sword again.
Pitt saw through the scheme and recalled his agent Stanley from
Paris. A new and powerful impulse now communicated itself to his
own schemes. The crucial question is not whether he actually knew the
details of the Bourbon " Family Compact " signed at Paris on August 15,
before he took the decisive step — a point which is much debated — for he
knew enough to convince him of the actual fact. He knew that France
had pledged herself to conclude no peace without taking Spanish interests
into consideration ; he knew also that to go to war with England at this
moment, before the expected Plate fleet from America had reached Cadiz,
would be exceedingly inconvenient to Spain ; he even knew that Spanish
men-of-war had been sent out to convoy the ^ota safely home. This
information convinced Pitt, not only that war with Spain was unavoid-
able, but also that it must , be declared by England at once. It was on
this head that the memorable disagreement arose in the Cabinet which
ended in the resignation of Pitt.
The Minister had little difficulty in convincing his colleagues of the
necessity of breaking off the negotiations at Paris and recalling Stanley.
But now they declined to go any further with him^ The majority would
not consent to an immediate declaration of war against Spain. We are
now fully informed from various sources as to the stormy Cabinet meet-
ings of September 17, 18, and 19, 1761. Pitt laid before the Cabinet an
intercepted letter from the Spanish envoy in Paris, which revealed every-
thing. He showed, in an impressive speech, that the danger could only^
grow greater if Spain were to declare war herself in the following spring.
There was at present but one House of Bourbon. The Spanish fleet must
iT6i] Opposition to Pitt in the Cabinet. 419
be regai'ded as a French fleet. " Spain is France, and France is Spain."
The peace party in the Cabinet raised the objection that action could
not be taken on the ground of an intercepted letter without a previous
declaration of war, and that the attacsk of the Spanish fleet off Cape
Passaro, in 1718, without such a declaration, still remained a cause of
bitterness. Anson, the First Lord of the Admiralty, declared that the
preparations necessary for the stroke which Pitt demanded could not
be finished in time. And the conclusion reached was that it would be
sufficient to present a protest at Madrid and demand explanations, and
perhaps to make some advances towards settling the differences which
embroiled England and Spain in Central America. Only Pitt's brother-
in-law, Lord Temple, supported him in demanding the recall of Lord
Bristol, the English ambassador at Madrid. Pitt and Temple drew up a
protest to lay before the King. It exposed the aggressive and unexampled
conduct of the Spanish Court, which aimed at producing a crisis in a
conflict with England by causing the intervention of a Power at war
with her, and this at a time when Spain was loudly proclaiming her
friendliness to Great Britain. The King was therefore begged to order
Bristol to hand in a declaration of war, and to return to England
without taking a formal leave.
The King declined to receive the protest. He was already completely
under the influence of Pitt's opponents in the Cabinet, who were led
by his favourite, Lord Bute. We find the little coterie assembling at
Devonshire House to concert, in secret meetings, the best tactics to be
followed in their opposition to the powerful Minister. They were still
alarmed at the possibility that Pitt might at this moment retire from
the Cabinet and leave them to conduct the War without the genius which
organised the fleets and armies of England. Nor could they altogether
parry Pitt's argument for the necessity of an immediate war with Spain,
that the Plate fleet had not yet reached Europe, and that the wealthy
Spanish colonies could be attacked with good prospects of success,
inasmuch as England wsis in command of the sea. But they did not
flinch from their opinion, when Pitt made his retention of office condi-
tional on the acceptance of his scheme. The personal attitude of the King
was, moreover, of extreme importance. The Ministers came separately to
him to give their advice. Pitt had his audience like the rest. But George
was already estranged from him, and there is no doubt that the King's
desire to free himself from the influence of the great Minister was an
element of extreme importance in the whole struggle. Bute, too, appears
in these proceedings quite as much in the character of the tool of an auto-
cratic master as in that of the exponent of a policy whose consequences
he was hardly able to grasp. How thoroughly he could rely upon the
support of the sovereign if he opposed Pitt in the Cabinet is seen by a
remark of Newcastle's on September 26 : "the King seems every day more
off'ended with Mr Pitt, and plainly wants to get rid of him at all events."
OH. XIII. 27—2
420 Bedgnation of Pitt. [i76i
The situation was in no way altered by the arrival of Stanley and
his verbal explanations, although they seemed to justify Pitt's contention
completely. On October 2, the decisive sitting of the Cabinet took place,
when for the last time the two sides had the opportunity of explaining
their intentions. Pitt repeated his earlier statements ; but he added
with great dignity that he could not remain in office without possessing
a real control, nor be responsible for a policy of which he had not the
direction — old Lord Granville urging against him that, when a matter
had' once been submitted for the decision of the Cabinet, it was to be
regarded as a Cabinet measure and not as that of a single Minister.
In the entrjr which Burke madte in his Annual Register for 1761, the
diiFerent attitudes of the Ministers with regard to the constitutional
question are indeed set in much sharper mutual contrast than is shown
in the notes of those who were present. But, however little credit be
attached to Burke's account, it at least shows clearly enough in what' light
the relations between the young King and the great Minister were
popularly regarded. Pitt is reported to have said that he had been
called to the Ministry by the voice of the people, and was answerable to
them for his conduct, and that he would not remain in a position which
laid upon him the responsibility for measures which he could no longer
direct. Granville is stated to have replied: "I find the gentleman is
determined to leave us, nor can I say I am sorry for it, since he would
otherwise have certainly compelled us to leave him. But if he be
resolved to assume the right of advising His Majesty and directing the
(^erations of the war, to what purpose are we called to this Council ?
When he talks of being responsible to the people, he talks the language
of the House of Commons, and forgets that at this Board he is only
responsible to the King."
On October 5, 1761, William Pitt laid down the office which he
had conducted so gloriously as to become the foremost man in England.
His fall was an event of far greater moment than ordinarily belongs to
the resignation of a Minister. No other could wield the tremendous
power which he had possessed — neither Lord Egremont, his successor
in office, nor Bute, the King's favourite, nor the King himself. For
the confidence of the nation, which had been given to Pitt, could not
be transferred with the office to another. Bute's fears that when Pitt
left the Government he would take its popularity with him were by
no means groundless. In the constitutional history of England this
important fact is to be observed, that the first great statesman raised
to power by the will of the people laid down his office voluntarily, not
only because his colleagues did not agree with him* in his policy, but
also because government by the will of the people, which had been
extorted from the monarchy in the last years of George II, was no
longer possible under his successor. The rule of the Great Commoner
is followed by George Ill's attempt at personal government, for which
his Scottish favourite endeavoured to smooth the way.
1V61-2] War with Spain-NegoUationsfor a separate peace. 421
To return to the year 1761 : it was the struggle with Spain which
led to the resignation of Pitt. If, then, convinced of the impossibility
of avoiding war, he wished to forestall the attack of the enemy, wherein
did his design diif'er from the action of Frederick the Great at the
beginning of the war in 1756 ? Frederick, like Pitt, was decided by the
strategical question — ^by the advantages to be derived from an immediate
and well-aimed stroke against an enemy taken unawares. Only, the
position in which these two great men, akin to each other in genius,
found themselves was not identical. Frederick could conduct his policy
as he lik^d in time of war and peace ; he could mockingly dub Podewils,
when that Minister proffered his warnings. Monsieur de la timide poli-
tique— for he was King. Pitt at the moment of the supreme crisis had
to recognise the limits of his power.
Pitt's foresight was justified. The War with Spain became a fact.
It provided fresh successes for the British fleets and armies, which are
described below. England once more clearly proved her superiority in
power over Spain. At the same time, it is as if the mighty impulse
communicated to English warfare by Pitt had been stiU .in action. Some of
the operations which were beii^ carried out had actually been prepared
by him. The nation judged rightly in hailing him as the real conqueror.
More especially, the conquest of Martinique and the smaller French
islands in the sphere of the Antilles, even to the smallest, was to be
looked upon as the accomplishment of Pitt's plans. The impression
which all these events made in the world was tremendous. The Pope
in Rome admiringly declared to an English Catholic that he knew no
greater honour than that of being bom an Englishman.
With these successes in warfare the conclusion of peace is signally
out of keeping. Now, at last, the lack of the great personality no longer
at the head of the State impresses itself upon the mind beyond all
possibility of mistake. Pitt would never have submitted to either the
terms or the form of the Peace. The form was that of a separate
treaty, which England without her principal ally concluded with France
and Spain. Pitt had assured Frederick the Great that England would
always adhere to her alliance with Prussia; he was in the habit
of repeatedly referring in his parliamentary speeches to the value of
the Prussian alliance; and never had he done so more efi^ctively than
when in opposing the conclusion of peace he made use of the celebrated
hyperbole: "America had been conquered in Germany." As to the
actual terms of the Peace, victorious Great Britain amazed all sides by
giving up voluntarily more of her conquests than seemed necessary for
the sake of a permanent pacification. Pitt would have required a far
greater share for England, and, if necessary, would have sought to force
the enemy by fresh humiliations to submit to his demands. The course
of the peace negotiations, which were eagerly taken up in 1762, is
CH. XIII.
422 Peace of Paris. [1762-73
intimately connected with the internal politics of England, and is de-
scribed in this connexion in the following section.
The good understanding between England and Prussia was not
restored. In 1762, Newcastle and Bute had for the first time left
unrenewed the Convention of April, 1758, which had hitherto been
annual. They had at first been prepared to pay the subsidies ; but it was
precisely at this point that a difference of opinion arose between the two
leading Ministers. Newcastle retired, and the King's favourite became
the head of the Administration as First Lord of the Treasury. But
it was no longer possible for Frederick to remain in alliance with the
English Government, which had nothing to offer him but good advice — to
the effect that he should make a sacrifice for the sake of peace, the very
sacrifice which a world in arms had proved unable to wring from him.
It was not to the English alliance that Frederick was indebted for
being at last alile to extricate his State from the difficulties of the Seven
Years' War without loss of territory and with great increase of prestige.
He never forgot the treatment which he had experienced from the
English Government in 1762. He declined the suggestion of an English
alliance in 1773, in remembrance of " the indecent, I might almost say
infamous, way in which England treated me at the last peace." The
judgment of history will hardly be so severe. The eighteenth century is
too fuU of treaties of peace concluded by one member of an alliance
without the other for the instance of 1762 to appear utterly unpre-
cedented. In any case, the English people resented the abandonment of
the hero of Bossbach bitterly— almost more bitterly than the loss of so
many valuable conquests. But how could it have been otherwise ? How
could such a Government as Bute's have been expected to uphold
England's Prussian ally more energetically, when they actually gave
back the most valuable portion of her own magnificent conquests ? The
question, which has recently been asked, whether England would have
been able to maintain all these possessions without reorganising the
relations between the mother country and the colonies, can no more affect
our judgment of Bute's policy than the circumstance, so favourable to
the English, that the French, after generously presenting Spain with the
whole of Louisiana, had now retired completely from the Continent of
America. As things then stood, the Peace seemed so out of proportion
to the conquests won that, very soon after the event, Bate was stated to
have been bribed by France — and the statement has been repeated up to
the present day. At the time, in 1762, the indignation was great. Such
a result was not what the nation, though certainly anxious for peace, had
contemplated. Never had Pitt expressed more perfectly what was in the
nation's heart than in the great speech which, on December 9, 1762, he
delivered against the Preliminaries of the Peace. When he left the House,
he was hailed in the street by the acclamations of the people. But, in
the House itself, gross corruption had once again won the day. In the
1760-2] Bute and "the Kings Friends." 423
division on the Address, moved by Fox, which approved the signature
of the Preliminaries, an enormous majority was in favour of the Address.
Only sixty-five members voted against it. " The Ministers have had the
numbers printed," wrote Horace Walpole ; " if they had but put the
names to them, the world would have known the names of the sixty-five
who were not bribed." When the Princess of Wales heard the news of
the acceptance of the Preliminaries she is said to have exclaimed, " Now
my son is really King of England."
The settlement of the Peace was followed by the fall of the great Whig
families. The day of the personal rule of King George III had come.
(2) THE KING'S FRIENDS.
It has been seen how the accession of GeOrge III was accompanied
by the revival of aspirations and pretensions that had long been in
abeyance. The Whigs had owed their ascendancy not merely to their
wealth, capacity, and solidarity, but also — and in a principal degree —
to the foreign character of the dynasty of which they were the mainstay.
Their wealth was still enormous and secured them commensurate influence,
but they were rent with schisms, and their disordered ranks contained no
statesman of genius save William Pitt, while with George II the foreign
character of the dynasty passed away. The new King could claim to be
an Englishman born and bred, and as such entitled to the loyal allegiance
of Whig, Tory, and Jacobite alike. It was open to him, were he so
minded, to essay the realisation of the ideal set forth by Bolingbroke of
the "Patriot King" governing through constitutional forms, but yet
freely, as the head of the State, not as the puppet of a party.
Perhaps no King was ever inclined by nature to take a low view of his
prerogative ; and certainly George Ill's education had not been of a kind
to impart any such bias. His father's death and his grandfather's neglect
had left him to the guidance of a mother, Augusta, Princess of Wales,
who was imbued with all the autocratic ideas of a petty German Court.
She was never tired of exhorting her son to be a King ; and her mentor
and confidant, John Stewart, third Earl of Bute, having, so to speak,
prerogative in his blood, was not the man to counteract her influence or
to choose for the Prince instructors who would be likely to do so. The
Prince therefore came to the throne with a mind made up to shake off^
the yoke of the Whig oligarchy, and form for himself a party which
should secure him against the danger of ever again falling beneath their
yoke. Such ^ party Bute, who on the accession was sworn of the Privy
Council and admitted to the Cabinet, undertook to organise and to
maintain in subservience ; and the moment was peculiarly propitious,
for the political equilibrium was unstable in the extreme.
424 Bedford, Bute and their followers. [i760-i
Government by the collective Cabinet was still the pure theory of
Whig constitutionalism, to which whatever savoured of a Prime Minister
was abhorrent. Pitt, the strong man just now at the helm, was by
consequence regarded with suspicion by such old Whigs as Devonshire,
Hardwicke, Newcastle and Bedford, who stood or fell by the system of
" general cabinet advice," and could not recognise a principal Minister
as being more than their most trusted spokesman in the Closet. So
soon as Pitt claimed to exercise a paramount, or anything approaching
to a paramount, influence in the Cabinet, it was time to concert some
new arrangement, and Newcastle and Hardwicke were excellently well
qualified for such work.
To Bedford Pitt's policy was no less obnoxious than Pitt himself.
He adhered to the Walpolean tradition of an entente cordiale with France,
and was for making peace at almost any price. His connexion consisted
of Marlborough and Lords Gower, Sandwich, and Weymouth, with
B:ichard Rigby, an unscrupulous wire-puller recently appointed Master
of the Irish Rolls. Hardwicke recognised that after tiie conquest of
Canada England had nothing substantial to gain by a prolongation of
hostilities. George Grenville, who had a private feud with Pitt and a small
connexion of his own, which included Lords Egremont, Barrington, and
Hillsborough, was ready to approve any honourable terms of peace, and
to coalesce with whoever might be able to secure them. Newcastle and
Anson took their cue from Hardwicke ; Ligonier was no politician ;
Henry Fox was nothing else ; and Halifax was pledged to no policy or
faction. In short, except Temple, no Minister was prepared to give
hearty support to Pitt's policy of pulverising the House of Bourbon,
which might well seem quixotic to Mansfield and questionable even to
Granville.
Outside the Ministry, Wliiggism had no more typical representative
than Charles Watson-Wentworth, second Marquis of Rockingham ; while
in Augustus Henry Fitzroy, third Duke of Grafton, and Charles Lennox,
third Duke of Richmond, it was tempered by popular sympathies, and,
in Grafton's case, by admiration for Pitt. Bute's immediate entourage
consisted of his brother James Stewart Mackenzie, who had gained some
trifling experience of affairs of State at the Court of Turin ; Charles
Jenkinson, a clerk in the Secretary of State's office, whom he made his
private secretary ; Gilbert, afterwards Sir Gilbert, Elliot, member for
Selkirkshire ; and Bubb Dodington, an old habitui of Leicester House.
Jenkinson and Elliot were both men of some ability, and Dodington had
a gi'Cat capacity for small intrigue ; but the favourite's most trusted
adviser was the Sardinian Minister, Count de Viry, who acted as his
intermediary in all important secret negotiations. In Lord Egmont,
an Irish peer, the notorious Sir Francis Dashwood, and the Earl of
Northumberland the Court might find Ministers ^flM^e de mieux; and
in Jeremiah Dyson, Clerk of the House of Commons, it possessed a
i76i] New policy. Measures and Men. 425
wire-puller all the more zealous for prerogative because he was a quite
recent convert from republican principles.
The keynote of the new policy was struck in the Speech from the
Throne which inaugurated the first parliamentary session of the new
reign. The speech itself was drafted by Hardwicke in the tone of
sobriety congenial to his temperament and training ; but Bute took care
that the King should interpolate with his own hand the flourish in which
he gloried in the name of Briton. Two measures followed, the limitation
of the Civil List to £800,000, and the exemption of judicial offices from
defeasance on the demise of the Crown. These Acts were gratefully
received by the people as an earnest of the young monarch's good inten-
tions. The dignity of Chancellor was at the same time confen-ed on Lord
Keeper Henley, soon afterwards created Earl of Northington.
On the eve of the dissolution of March 20, 1761, Bute was admitted
by Newcastle to a sort of partnership in parliamentary patronage, which
placed perhaps thirty or forty votes in the House of Commons at the
disposal of the Crown. About the same time, George GrenvjUe, of whom
the Court had hopes, was accorded cabinet rank, retaining, however, his
office of Treasurer of the Navy (February 11). Occasion was found
in Legge's opposition to the proposed indemnification of Landgrave
Frederick II of Hesse-Cassel for his losses in the recent campaign, to
dismiss an able financier and put in his place Lord Barrington, the very
t3rpe of respectable mediocrity (March 12). Gilbert Elliot was made a
Lord of the Treasury. Holdernesse, Pitt's makeweight colleague in the
Secretaries' office, was pensioned off", and the seals were transferred to Bute
(March 25). Halifax surrendered the Board of Trade to a veteran
placeman. Lord Sandys, and succeeded Bedford in the Irish viceroyalty.
These changes were made with the cognisance and consent of Newcastle,
Devonshire, Hardwicke, and Bedford, whose countenance of Bute gave
great umbrage to Pitt. The elevation of Bubb Dodington to the peerage
as Lord Melcombe secured a seat in the House of Commons for Dashwood.
It was now that was formed the nucleus of the party which, as consisting
of the avowed supporters of Prerogaltive, soon came to be known by the
appropriate designation of " the King's Friends." About the same time,
the seat vacated by Lord Fitzmaurice on his succession to the Irish
earldom of Shelbume and the English barony of Wycombe was taken by
Colonel Isaac Barre, a staunch Whig with a great command of rhetoric
and a grudge against Pitt. The return for the Ayr boroughs of a
versatile Scottish lawyer, Alexander Wedderburn, served to strengthen
the Grenville group.
Bute, as has been related above, received the seals at a critical
juncture. The outlook, dark as it was for Russia, was hardly less so
for France ; and in these circumstances Choiseul proposed a general
pacification (March 27) and consented to lead the way by a separate
negotiation. As was only to be expected, Pitt dallied with Choiseul's
CH, XIII.
426 FallofPitt. Rupture with Spain. Conduct of the War. [i76i-2
proposals, while the reduction of Belle Isle and Dominica was in progress;
and Choiseul in his turn fenced with Pitt until he had signed a new Family
Compact (August 15). A month later Pitt ruptured the negotiation,
and shortly afterwards he announced to the Cabinet the existence of
a secret understanding between France and Spain, which he proposed
to make a castis belli. Temple alone supported him, and after several
stormy meetings he and Temple resigned (October). The seals of the
Southern Department were thereupon given to Lord Egremont, and the
Privy Seal to Bedford, who, however, had not the full confidence of the
King and the inner Cabinet, which consisted of Bute, Egremont, and
George Grenville. Natural as was Pitt's resentment, no less natural was
the divergence of opinion which occasioned it. Choiseul's renewal of
the Family Compact was a suspicious ciraimstance ; but, however much
Pitt may have gathered of the provisions of the Treaty, it remained
unauthenticated, and so long as that was so, its existence could, in the
cool judgment of statesmen less bellicose than Pitt, hardly warrant an
immediate declaration of war. It was fairly arguable that the resources
of diplomacy should first be exhausted.
The resources of such diplomacy as was employed on this occasion
were, however, soon at an end. Disclosure of so much of the Family Com-
pact as concerned British interests was demanded rather than requested
of the Court of Madrid, which took the only course consistent with its
dignity and haughtily refused the required information. In December
the British ambassador, Lord Bristol, was recalled, and early in the
following year war was declared. The Council was, however, to the
last far from unanimous ; Newcastle, Hardwicke, Bedford and Mansfield
holding that there was no casus belli.
The course of the War proved on the whole disastrous to the House
of Bourbon. The conquest of Martinique by Rear-Admiral Rodney
and Major-General Monckton (February 12, 1762) was followed by the
occupation of St Lucia, St Vincent, and Grenada. On September 18, the
only recent French acquisition, St John's, Newfoundland, was recovered
by Colonel Amherst. In Germany Prince Ferdinand of Brunswick,
brilliantly seconded by the Marquis of Granby, defeated the united
forces of Soubise and d'Estrees at Wilhelmsthal (June 24) and Luttem-
berg (July 23), and compelled the evacuation of Gottingen (August 16)
and the surrender of Cassel (November 1). Nor was Spain much more
fortunate. The army, 42,000 strong, which in May she threw across the
frontier of Portugal, at first carried all before it ; but the defence of the
line of the Tagus was ably organised by the eminent artillerist Count
William von der Lippe-Buckeburg, aided by Lord Loudoun, in command
of a contingent of 7000 British, while Colonel Burgoyne adroitly sur-
prised Valencia de Alcantara (August 27) and Villa velha (October 6).
Havana, blockaded by nineteen sail of the line under Admiral Pocock
and besieged by twelve thousand seasoned troops under Lord Albemarle,
1761-2] Desertion of Prussia and overtures for peace. 427
surrendered after an obstinate defence (August 12). In the East Indies
the recent reduction of Pondicherry (January, 1761) made it possible to
equip an expedition at Madras under Rear- Admiral Cornish and General
Draper, which carried Manila by assault and held the Philippines to
ransom (October, 1762). Unfortunately, however, the splendour of these
feats of arms had its foil in the misguided policy of the Government. Bute
saw in the alliance with Frederick the Great nothing but an obstacle
to peace ; and, being inexperienced, tactless, and none too scrupulous, he,
upon the accession of Tsar Peter III, made to the Courts of St Petersburg
and Vienna overtures of a kind to suggest a triple alliance for imposing
peace on Bourbon and Hohenzollem alike. Upon the fairest con-
struction, the policy was scarcely loyal, and it wore the appearance of
downright treachery.
Kaunitz suspected a snare, and the Tsar was already pledged to
Prussia. Bute's advances therefore met with a haughty repulse at both
Courts ; and Frederick, discovering what had happened, put the worst
construction upon the British policy. His irritation was increased, when
he learned that the British Government had determined to discontinue
his subsidy and withdraw from the German War. Since the subsidy was
contingent upon annual conventions which alone precluded the making
a separate peace, its discontinuance was no positive breach of faith ; but,
as Frederick's position was still critical, such a volte-face at such a
juncture was, to say the least of it, discreditable. The new policy, first
mooted by Bedford, speedily gained the adhesion of George Grenville,
but was stoutly resisted by Newcastle, Hardwicke, and Devonshire.
Upon its definitive adoption by the Government, Newcastle, whom
Bute had treated with studied indignity, resigned, and Devonshire and
Hardwicke withdrew from the Council Board.
On May 26, 1762, the King gave the Treasury to Bute, who was also
invested with the Garter. He was succeeded as Secretary by George
Grenville, the Treasurership of the Navy being given to Barrington, and
the Chancellorship of the Exchequer to Dash wood. Frederick, Lord
North, eldest son of the Earl of Guilford, remained Junior Lord of the
Treasury; and, on Anson's death (June 6), Halifax succeeded to the
First Lordship of the Admiralty. Jeremiah Dyson became Secretary to
the Treasury, and Charles Jenkinson Treasurer of the Ordnance Office.
Lord Melcombe was admitted to the Cabinet; and honours were dis-
pensed with a lavish hand to the supporters of the Court.
Meanwhile, the Family Compact had ceased to be regarded as an
obstacle to peace. Occasion had been found for resuming negotiations
with Choiseul upon a basis which included the Spanish claims. To
ensure secrecy, the correspondence was for a time conducted through the
medium of the Sardinian Ministers at London and Paris ; but by May,
1762, the fact that the negotiation was pending had transpired. It was
then formally notified to the Empress Queen, and in the course of the
428 The Peace of Paris. [nes-a
summer the matter was brought to a point at which it was ripe to
be entrusted to plenipotentiaries. As such, in September, the Due de
Nivemais was accredited at London and the Duke of Bedford at Paris.
Bedford, however, was not allowed a free hand, though, except the
Spanish claims, there remained little to discuss. When the question of
the exchange for Havana came on the tapis, there was much divergence
of opinion in the Cabinet, and, though Florida was eventually insisted
upon, George Grenville, the stoutest opponent of gratuitous concession,
changed places at Bute's instance with Halifax and gave up the lead in
the House of Commons to Henry Fox (October 14). A seat in the
Cabinet was offered to Newcastle, in the hope of securing not only his
but Hardwicke's and Devonshire''s support for the peace, but was uncere-
moniously refused ; and the three malcontent peers absented themselves
from tiie Council summoned for the discussion of the final draft of the
preliminaries, though all three had received the customary writs. In
the circumstances the King regarded their absence as a personal affront,
and took the first opportunity of denying Devonshire an audience.
The Duke, in consequence, resigned the office of Lord Chamberlain
(October 28), and the members of his family and his principal political
connexions and friends followed suit. The King thereupon erased his
name from the list of Privy Councillors, and deprived Newcastle, Rock-
ingham, and Ashburnham of their Lord Lieutenancies.
The Preliminaries of the Peace were signed at Fontainebleau on
November 3, 1762 ; but the Treaty was not made definitive until the
virtual completion of the separate negotiation between Austria and
Prussia. It was signed at Paris, with the accession of Portugal, on
February 10, 1763, five days before the Peace of Hubertusburg. Thus,
by two separate Treaties, the general pacification was at length effected.
During the final stage of the negotiation Bedford had been placed
at a great disadvantage by the fact that the tenor of his instructions
was perfectly known to Choiseul. Choiseul's informant was the Chevalier
d'Eon, Nivemais' secretary, who by a discreditable artifice had got sight
of the instructions and copied them. Bedford, however, believed that
he had been betrayed by Bute, and on his return to England marked his
resentment by resigning the Privy Seal and refusing the Presidency of
the Council, vacant by the recent death of Granville.
By the Peace of Paris Great Britain, retaining Canada and Cape
Breton, ceded to France the islets of St Pierre and Miquelon as an
unfortified station for her fishermen, who were guaranteed their rights
under the Treaty of Utrecht and accorded a circumscribed right of fishing
within the Gulf of St Lawrence: the neutral islands were partitioned
—St Vincent, Dominica, and Tobago falling to Great Britain, St Lucia
to France, to which Great Britain ceded Martinique and Guadaloupe
for Grenada and the Grenadines, in Africa the island of Goree for the
Senegal Protectorate, and in Europe Belle Isle for Minorca. With Spain
1763] Reception of the Peace in England. — Bute retires. 429
Great Britain exchanged Havana for Florida, and agreed to dismantle
her forts in the Bay of Honduras in return for a guarantee of a limited
participation in the logwood trade, Spain totally renouncing her claim
to participate in the Newfoundland fishery. As the westward limit of
British dominion France and Spain accepted the line of the Mississippi
from source to mouth, exclusive only of the New Orleans territory,
which with western Louisiana France ceded to Spain by a separate
convention. In the East Indies the status quo of 1749 was restored,
except that France engaged to keep no army in Bengal and ceded Natal
and Tapanuli in Sumatra to Great Britain. All other conquests were
restored by the signatory Powers. France engaged to reduce the forti-
fications of Dunkirk to the condition stipulated by the Peace of Aix-la-
Qiapelle.
The discrepancy between the concessions which Great Britain made
by this Peace and the terms which she was in a position to dictate was
so glaring as to raise a suspicion that the country had been betrayed — a
suspicion which, all things considered, cannot be characterised as entirely
unreasonable. It is a significant fact that, after the battle of Wil-
helmsthal, Bute wrote to Choiseul as to an ally, urging him to do his
utmost to check Prince Ferdinand's advance. But, though the Peace
was by no means such as the country was entitled to expect, it encoun-
tered, except on the part of Pitt, no determined opposition and was
carried by majorities too large to be attributable wholly to corrupt influ-
ence. The country was weary of the War, and sullenly acquiesced in
sacrifices which were speciously represented as essential to the durability
of the Peace. The victory was crowned by a proscription of the Oppo-
sition, which did not cease until they had been stripped of most of the
places of honour and profit which they held under the Crown, down to
subordinate posts in the customs and excise departments.
The unpopularity of the Government was increased by their budget,
which saddled the country with a loan of ^^7,000,000 and an excise duty
on cider, leviable on the maker. The cider duty was still (as in Walpole's
day) extremely obnoxious to the people, and was only carried after a
severe struggle which reunited the Opposition. The odium which it
brought upon the Government found peculiarly pungent expression in
the North Briton, a journal edited by John Wilkes, member for Ayles-
bury. Bute felt his position to be intolerable, and lost no time in
resigning (April 8). Dashwood, who followed suit, was consoled with
the barony of Le Despencer ; and about the same time Henry Fox,
retaining the Pay Office, was created Lord Holland. The lead of the
King's Friends in the House of Commons devolved upon Jenkinson.
There is no reason to seek for other explanation of Bute's retirement
than lassitude and a desire to relieve the Government of the obloquy in
which it was involved by his presence at its head. He continued for a
while to enjoy the royal confidence, and selected as his successor George
OH. XIII.
430 The Grenville-Bedford Administration and Wilkes. [i763-5
Grenville, who united the seals of the Treasury and the Exchequer.
The Admiralty was given to Sandwich. Charles Townshend, who had
just succeeded Sandys at the Board of Trade, was displaced to make room
for Shelbume (April 20). Stewart Mackenzie received the Privy Seal of
Scotland. These arrangements, except the last, were, however, merely
provisional. Bute contemplated an early reconstruction of the Admini-
stration, with Pitt as Secretary and some other First Lord of the Treasury
than Grenville. He lost no time in sounding both Pitt and Bedford,
but was encouraged by neither. On Egremonfs sudden death (August 21)
he renewed his overtures ; and the King sent for Pitt (August 27). But
it was in vain that he offered to place Temple at the Treasury; Pitt
required the dismissal of all who had had a hand in the Peace. Bedford,
however, whose son-in-law, Marlborough, was already Lord Privy Seal,
at length accepted the Presidency of the Council, though only on con-
dition that Bute retired from Court — a condition which Bute fulfilled
in the letter by rusticating himself at Luton Hoo. Egremonfs place
was taken by Halifax, with Sandwich for his colleague, whom Egmont
succeeded at the Admiralty. Shelbume, who had now cast in his lot
with Pitt, resigned, and was succeeded by Hillsborough (September).
The Grenville-Bedford Administration compounded with France a
claim for the maintenance of prisoners of war (April, 1765), but failed
to recover the unpaid moiety (2,000,000 pesos) of the Manila ransom.
It is chiefly memorable for the series of blunders by which it embroiled
the Court and eventually the House of Commons with the country, the
coimtry with the American colonies, and itself with the Crown. On
April 19, 1763, the session closed with a Speech from the Throne, in
which the nation was congratulated on the Peace, and the Treaty of
Hubertusburg was represented as a consequence of the Treaty of Paris.
The Speech furnished the North Briton (No. 45, April 23) with matter
for much free comment. In particular the passage concerning the
Treaty of Hubertusburg was characterised as "the most abandoned
instance of ministerial effrontery ever attempted to be imposed on man-
kind"; and more followed, amounting to an insinuation that the King
had allowed himself to be made a party to a deliberate falsehood.
George III keenly resented this licence,, which, indeed, in the opinion of
the law officers, constituted a seditious libel. As, however, evidence was
wanting to convict the anonymous writer, the Secretaries of State issued
warrants for the apprehension of the persons and papers of the authors,
printers, and publishers of the libel. The warrants named two printers
who had been in Wilkes' employ, but not Wilkes himself; and, as by
common law a wan-ant must name all persons to be apprehended there-
under, and the Secretaries had no exceptional powers, neither warrant
was valid against Wilkes. . Nevertheless, on April 30, he was arrested
in the vicinity of his house, which was entered, searched, and cleared
of his papers. He was taken before the Secretaries, examined, and,
1763] Waiver of privilege and expulsion of Wilkes. 431
notwithstanding that, on Lord Temple's application, his writ of habeas
corpus had in the meantime been granted, he was committed close
prisoner to the Tower. General warrants by Secretaries of State were
not without precedent since the Revolution, and, on the return of the
writ of habeas corpus. Sir Charles Pratt, Lord Chief Justice of the
Common Pleas, refrained from pronouncing those issued in the present
instance to be illegal, and discharged Wilkes on the ground of privilege
of Parliament (May 6).
To the King it was intolerable that privilege of Parliament should
stand between him and the object of his displeasure ; and, as Parliament
alone could determine the extent of its privilege, to Parliament he
appealed. A message conveyed through George Grenville on the first
day of the ensuing session (November 15) readily elicited from the House
of Commons resolutions not only censuring the North Briton, No. 45, as
a seditious libel and consigning it to the common hangman to be burned,
but withdi-awing the aegis of privilege from all who had been concerned
in its production. Even Pitt joined in the censure on Wilkes and
opposed the waiver of privilege on purely constitutional grounds. As,
however, treason, felony, and breach of the peace were the only offences
then recognised as ousting privilege of Parliament, its withdrawal even in
the case of Wilkes was felt to be so serious an innovation as to demand
the sanction of both Houses. A conference of Lords and Commons,
managed on the part of the latter by Lord North, was accordingly held ;
and, though the Court triumphed, there was a goodly array of dissentients.
The waiver was opposed by Shelburne with studied moderation, and with
inflexible determination by Temple, who, with Grafton, Portland, Bristol,
Devonshire, Scarborough, Bessborough, and ten other peers, entered a
protest against it in the Journal of their House. Few constitutional
lawyers to-day would be found to regret the abandonment of a privilege
which was only valuable as a check upon prerogative ; but the circum-
stances of the hour fully justified the strong stand made by the minority.
Matter for collateral proceedings against Wilkes was furnished by a
pseudonymous production printed at his private press. Its contents
consisted of a filthy parody of Pope's Essay on Man, entitled An Essay
on Woman, with notes purporting to be by Bishop Warburton, and some
blasphemous paraphrases of Christian hymns. Only a dozen copies of
the work were in print, and there was no evidence that they had been
circulated. One, however, had been procured from the compositors by
Sandwich, on whose motion (November 15) the House of Lords voted the
book a breach of privilege and a scandalous, obscene, and impious libel.
Wilkes, laid aside for a time by a wound received in a duel, coolly
employed his convalescence in reprinting the North Briton at his private
press. He then found himself menaced with two prosecutions for libel,
one because of the North Briton, the other because of the Essay on
Woman, and absconded to France. He was expelled the House of
432 The American fiscal question. [i763-g
Commons (January 19, 1764) ; and, having thereupon been found guilty
before Lord Mansfield on both the charges of libel (February 21), and
not appearing to receive judgment, he was outlawed (November 1)*
Popv^ar feeling acclaimed Wilkes a patriot, and the dismissal of Temple
from the Lord Lieutenancy of Buckinghaimshire, pf Shelburne from ihe
post of aide-de-camp to the King, and of General Conway and Colonel
Barrej who had supported the "patriot's" cause in the House of
Commons, from their respective commands, served to intensify the public
indignation. The burning of the obnoxious number of the North Briton
caused a riot, and, though Mansfield by reserving the question of law for
his own decision secured the conviction of the publisher, the pillory to
which he was cbnsigned proved a place of honour rather than of ignominy.
Wood, the Under-Secretary who had superintended the seizure of Wilkes'
papers, was cast in ,£1000 damages in an action instituted by Lord
Temple in Wilkes' name (December 6, 1763); and cognate legal pro-
ceedings elicited from Mansfield himself a final determination of the
illegality of general warrants (1765). An action against Halifax was
delayed by legal chifcane until the outlawry could be pleaded in bar, but
was revived on the reversal of the outlawry, and resulted in a verdict for
Wilkes with ■£'4000 damages (November 10, 1769).
The American policy of the Government, which has been already
discussed in an earlier volume, was dictated by no set purpose of sub-'
verting liberty; but its errors were none the less fatal because they sprang
from nothing worse than defective insight and foresight. It proceeded
on the principle, in itself plausible enough, that the colonies, delivered
by the mother country from imminent peril of subjugation by the French,
ought thenceforth to contribute to the cost of their defence and adminis-
tration by some method more regular and remunerative than voluntary
and occasional aids and the insignificant revenue from the Crown quit-
rents. It ignored the fact that, if the supplies which in times of
emergency the colonial Assemblies were accustomed to grant, and the
commercial intercourse which the Navigation Laws regulated in the
supposed interest of the mother country, did not constitute an adequate
compensation for her expenditure upon the colonies, no revenue which
she could exact from them could possibly turn the scale in her favour,
while the mere attempt to raise such a revenue, however small, by Act of
Parliament could not but excite the resentment of a people singularly
jealous of its liberties. The Government, however, was bent on trying
this hazardous experiment, and, as the Opposition did not as yet concern
itself seriously with America, the experiment was made without delay.
The Sugar Act of 1733 (6 Geo. II, c. 13) was revised, reenacted without
limit of duration, and converted from a merely commercial into a fiscal
measure (4 Geo. Ill, c. 15); and the powers of the Admiralty Courts and
executive were amplified, both for the enforcement of the Navigation
1764-5] Reinforcevie7it of Navigation Laws. — Stamp Act. 433
Laws and for the collfection of the revenue. Pursuant to this Act, a
Court of Vice-Admiralty was established for the whole of the colonies
(May 18, 1764). The measure was peculiarly obnoxious to the colonists,
because the Governors were entitled to one-third of the value of the
forfeitures and had thus a substantial interest in enforcing the law.
Complaint was also made that the Courts sat at places that caused
great inconvenience to the parties. But this was not all. From the
purview of the Navigation Acts bullion was expressly excluded ; never-
theless, by some strange oversight, commodities bartered for bullion were
not exempted from seizure. The authorities had hitherto refused to tiake
advantage of this oversight, and had also relaxed the law with regard to
Portuguese lemons and wines. All this was now altered. The bullion
trade was treated as contraband; and the whole available naval force was
commissioned for the enforcement of the law. The revenue officers, armed
with "writs of assistance" from the superior Courts, obeyed their instruc-
tions to the letter, and, despite strenuous resistance, with such effect that
the supply of bullion fell short. The stringency of this policy was
increased by the inopportune demonetisation of bills of credit, which had
hitherto circulated as legal tender. In these circumstances, it was
scarcely to be wondered at that the colonists viewed the establishment
in their midst of a standing army of twenty regiments rather . as
a menace to their liberties than as a means to their protection, and
bitterly resented the requisitions served upon them for the provision of
recruits. Their resentment was aiggravated by the application to their
business transactions of an elaborate system of stamp duties appropriated
to the same account as the tariff, and Enforceable by the same machinery.
The Stamp Act passed almost unopposed (March, 1765), and, indeed,
could hardly have been opposed on strictly constitutional grounds. The
delegated powers of the colonial Assemblies cbuld not oust the authority
of Parliament. The attempt made by Pitt at a later date to limit that
authority in colonial matters fiscal to the imposition of "external" duties
merely evinced his ignorance of the true incidence of taxation. Nor
could the principle of no taxation without actual representation be
maintained with logical consistency by any statesman not prepared for a
riidical reform of the British representative system. If the unenfranchised
masses of Great Britain were to be rtgarded as virtually represented because
they possessed the power of influehcing the electorate and Parliament by
money and agitation, the same might be said, though doubtless with a
less degree of plausibility, of their kith and kin beyond the Atlantic.
Moreover, the same logic which made actual representation a condition
precedent to taxation by Act of Parliament implied either the actual
inclusion of the colonies within the British representative system or the
concession to them of virtual independence. The former alternative was
generally regarded on both sides of the Atlantic as impralcticable, and
only the stem logic of fact could be expected to reconcile the mother
0. JU. B. VI. CH, XIII. gg
434 The Regency Act. — Fall of the Government, [i765
Qountry to the latter. In truth, the issue between the colonies and the
mother country was simpler and broader than it at first sight appeared.
Nothing could be urged against the Stamp Act which was not in
principle equally valid against the vexatious restrictions of the Naviga-
tion Laws; nothing short of complete autonomy could permanently
satisfy the aspirations of the colonists; and the injudicious action of the
British Government did but precipitate a struggle which in- any case
could not have been long deferred.
The Grenville- Bedford Administration went to pieces on a Bill for
the !Constitution of a Regency, in the event of the demise of the Crown
during the minority of the Heir Apparent. It was a Ministerial measure,
introduced in the House of Lords in response to a Royal Message in the
spring of 1765> The Bill proposed to vest the Regency in the Queen or
such other member of the royal family as the King should appoint, with
such powers and advisers as were provided by the similar Act passed on
the death of the King's father (24 Geo. II, c. 24). The ample discretion
thus reserved to the sovereign by no means commended itself to the
entire Cabinet. Bedford and the Secretaries of State suspected that the
message which had determined the scheme had been inspired by Bute,
and, by way of asserting their independence, attempted so to construe the
term royal family as, to exclude the Princess Mother from the Regency,
The Princess had not been naturalised by Act of Parliament, and it was
therefore contended that she was still an alien. This injurious quibble
was summarily disposed of by Northington and Mansfield, who pointed
out that she was naturalised by her marriage; and an opinion to the
same effect was elicited from the puisnSs, who, were quite free from the
suspicion of court influence. Richmond then moved (May 3), that the
Queen, the Princess Mother, and lineal descendants of the late King
resident in England, should be designated as eligible for the Regency.
Halifax procured the King's sanction to an amendment which had the
effect of excluding the Princess Mother. The amendment was carried ;
but the triumph of the cabal was only transient. The House of Commons
jnserteij the Princess Mother's name; and, thus reamended, the Bill
was returned to the House of Lords and passed into law (May 15).
Clothing had, in fact, been further from the King's thoughts than to
countenance such a slight , to his mother, and he determined at all costsj
to dehver himself from Ministers whom he regarded as little better than
traitors. To this end he opened, through Cumberland, negotiations with
titt and Temple, on the one hand, and Newcastle and Rockingham, on
the other. Pitt and Temple demanded in effect carte blanche as to men
and measures. Lord Lyttelton, to whom the King then turned, would
not take office without Pitt. The cabal threatened resignation. The
King temporised; biit the terms^the proscription of Bute and all his
connexion and the Commandership-in-chief for Granby — on which the
cabal insisted as the price of their retention of office, were more than he
1765-6] The RocMngham Administration.-The Stmrnp Act. 435
could brook, and, through Grafton, he renewed his overtures to, Pitt,
An arrangement seemed assured, when, suddenly, evetything was upset
by Temple's unexplained refusal of office. Probably; he nominated as
colleagues persons obnoxious to Pitt, who was prepared neither to defer
to Temple nor to dispense with him, and thus lost what proved to be his
last chance of forming a homogeneous Administration. To the King no
option remained but the recall of the old Whigs to power. Rockingham
became First Lord of the Treasury with Newcastle as Privy Seal, William
Dowdeswell, a man of ability, as Chancellor of the Exchequer, the aged
Earl of Winchilsea as President of the Council, and the Earl of
Dartmouth, a mere cipher, as President of the Board of Trade. At thes
same time the Pittite Grafton was associated with General Coinway, a
Rockingham Whig, in the Secretaries' office. Charles Townshend
retained the Pay Office, in which he had just succeeded Lord Holland,
Egmont the Admiralty, and Northington the Great Seal. Lord Chief
Justice Pratt was raised to the peerage as Baron Camden ; Charles
Yorke, Lord Hardwicke's second son and intellectual successor, was re-
instated in the office of Attorney-General which, pending the proceedings
against Wilkes, he had resigned ; and Lord George SackviUe, to Pitt's
intense disgust, was restored to the Privy Council, and appointed joint
vice-treasurer of Ireland. The Privy Seal of Scotland was given to
Lord Breadalbane.
In his private secretary Edmund Burke, member for Wendover, and
Attorney-General Yorke, Rockingham had two mentors whose views on
the American question had taken de^nite shape. Both acknowledged the
competence of Parliament to legislate for the colonies in regard to all
matters, and both regarded the Stamp Act as impolitic, and were therefore
prepared to approve its repeal, provided this were accompanied by a
measure affirming the limitless legislative authority of Parliament. With-
out such a measure there was, indeed, little chance of carrying the repeal ;
nor were Ministers by any means qnanimous on the question. They there-
fore temporised, and allowed Paj-liamept to adjourn for the Christmas
recess without affording any clear indication of their policy. When the
Houses reassembled (January 14, 1766), opinion was divided between the
repeal, the modification, and the enforcement of the Stamp Act. In this
difficulty. Ministers appealed to Pitt to come in and save them.
Pitt stipulated for the dismissal of Newcastle, the removal of Sack-
viUe from the Council, and "a transposition of offices," which was
understood to mean the removal of Rockingham from the Treasury.
Newcastle was patriotically willing to be sacrificed; but the King
demurred, and the negotiation fell through. Meanwhile, Pitt pressed
for the total repeal of the Stamp Act, on the fallacious ground of a
natural right in the colonists to the exclusive regulation of their in-^
temal taxation ; and in the House of Lords the same argument was used
by Camden and Shelbume. Its refutation by Mansfield, who showed
OH. XIII. 28—2
436 Repeal of Stamp Act. — Fall of the Government, [ivee
that no valid distinction could be drawn between an internal and an
external tax, the incidence of both being upon the community at large,
served to clear the issue. On the one hand, the plenitude of the
sovereignty of Parliament, on the other, the futility of any mere modifi-
cation of the Stamp Act, came to be generally recognised, and thus
Yorke's policy was at length adopted. The omnipotence of Parliament
was affirmed by a Declaratory Act and exemplified in practice by a
Mutiny Act, which required the ProvincialAssemblies to vote supplies
for the housing and maintenance of troops. Compensation was voted
to be due by the Provincial Assemblies to the sufferers by the recent
disturbances, and the vote was made an instruction to the Colonial
Governors. The Stamp Act was repealed, not without an indemnity
to those who had incurred penalties through inability to comply with
its provisions. The American tariff was materially lightened ; the bullion
trade was authorised ; and Dominica and Jamaica were opened to foreign
shipping. The Government also concluded a commercial treaty with
Russia, adjusted with France the claims of holders of Canadian paper
currency issued by the French Government before the Peace, and
exacted from her a partial demolition of the fortifications of Dunkirk.
Notwithstanding strenuous opposition, the repeal of the Stamp Act
was carried by a handsome majority (275 to 161) in the House af
Commons, and by a substantial majority (84) in the House of Lords.
The Administration was, however, already doomed. It held office by
sufferance of Pitt and the King ; and, mortified by his failure to obtain
an allowance for his brothers and by the House of Commons' express
condemnation of general warrants, the King determined to try once
more the effect of a new deal of the political cards. Pitt already made
no secret of his hostility to the party system as such, and was able
through his friends Grafton and Northington to make his influence felt
in the Closet ; but, when offered office, he, according to his wont, de-
manded carte blanche, and it was not until both Grafton and Northington
had resigned that the King was brought to accede to his terras (July 12).
There was at first some talk of coalition with the existing Administration ;
but, as Pitt continued to proscribe Newcastle, this proved impossible.
A coalition with the Bedford faction was equally out of the question ;
and Temple, to whom Pitt offered place, declined it, on learning that he
was to have no share in the formation of the Cabinet.
Forced thus to rely on the magic of his personality to make good
the lack of common principles, Pitt thereupon formed that ingenious and
incongruous combination so happily described by Burke as a "tessellated
pavement without cement." The Treasury was entrusted to the poco-
curante capacity of Grafton, the Exchequer to the erratic genius of
Charles Townshend. The Secretaries were Conway for the Northern,
Shelbume for the Southern, Department. Pitt himself took the Privy
Seal and a seat in the House of Lords as Earl of Chatham. Northington
iree-v] Character of Chatham's Administration, 437
resigned the Great Seal to Camden and accepted the Presidency of the
Council. Hillsborough was made President of the Board of Trade, with
powers subordinate to Shelbume's. Granby was installed in the office,
which had been long left vacant, of Commander-in-chief. Sir Charles
Saunders succeeded Egmont at the Admiralty. Bute was propitiated by
the restoration of the Privy Seal of Scotland to his brother and the
grant of a ducal coronet to his family connexion, Northumberland. The
Pay Office was divided between Lord North and George Cooke, member
for Middlesex. James Grenville replaced Lord George Sackville as joint
vice-treasurer of Ireland. Charles Yorke, whom Chatham could not
forgive for having, as he conceived, trimmed in the Wilkes case, was
succeeded as Attorney-General by William de Grey.
That this congeries of indifferent or mutually repellent atoms should
have proved more than ephemeral is attributable solely to the potent
influence which even in his eclipse emanated from its author. Chatham's
peerage and insignificant office were rightly interpreted at home and
abroad as symptoms of weakness, and in fact gout and hypochondria
rendered his position in the Cabinet from first to last little more than
nominal. Grafton and Conway, the one from indolence, the other from
sheer irresolution, were unfit to act except under Chatham's guidance.
Townshend, who owed his place to Grafton's interest and his admission
to the Cabinet to Chatham's indisposition, was enamoured of a plan for
raising a revenue from the colonies by external taxation. Shelbume
and Camden were opposed to the reopening of the American question in
any form ; but Hillsborough, who supported Townshend, was not a sub-
ordinate whom Shelbume could readily control ; Camden's influence was
limited ; and Northington was only desirous of ending his days in peace.
The Administration was hardly in office before it became necessary
partially to reconstruct it. The dismissal of Lord Edgcumbe from the
Treasurership of the Household to make way for one of Chatham's friends,
John Shelley, led to the exodus of the remnant of Rockingham Whigs,
with the single exception of Conway. Saunders was succeeded at the
Admiralty by Sir Edward Hawke, with Jenkinson vice Keppel as Junior
Lord.
In Europe the new Government commanded no confidence and in-
spired little respect. Frederick the Great denied to the Earl of Chatham
the trust he had reposed in the Great Commoner. Spain met the claim
on accoimt of the Manila ransom with a counter-claim to exclusive
possession of the Falkland Isles, on one of which a small British settle-
ment, Port Egmont, had been established in 1765. Nor could Ministers
rely on hearty support; at home. Hitherto, the country gentlemen had
sulkily acquiesced in a land tax of 4«. in the pound ; now, led by Dowdes-
well, they rose in revolt, and carried its reduction to 3s. (February 27,
1767). Meanwhile, the American question had assumed a new com-
plexion. The colonists had ignored the Declaratory Act, while they
CB. XIII.
438 American port duties. — The Crown and India. [i766-7
received the repeal of the Stamp Act with professions of gratitude ; but
the suggestion of compensation for the sufferers by the riots, and the
demand of supplies for the army, evoked a contrary spirit. The Assembly
of Massachusetts Bay voted the compensation, but by the same Act
granted a general pardon to the rioters (December 6, 1766). The
Assembly of New York made provision for the quartering of the troops
in a manner contrary to the Mutiny Act. The Privy Council annulled
both Acts, the one as an usurpation of the royal prerogative, the other
as inconsistent with the Charter of the Province. An Act of Parliament,
as has been related elsewhere, suspended the legislative functions of the
Assembly of New York until the provisions of the Mutiny Act should
be complied with. These measures were essential to the maintenance
of the authority of the Crown ; but wanton oifence was given to the
colonists by the imposition of Townshend's port duties on glass, leads,
pigments, teas, and paper.
Amid these manifold embarrassments, the Government essayed to
grapple with the formidable problem which the prowess of Clive had
forced upon their consideration, and which is discussed in another chapter.
The immense extent and importance of the recent territorial acquisitions
of the East India Company raised the question whether or how far such
imperial dominion was consistent with the terms of the Company's
Charter — a question upon which the Cabinet was far from unanimous.
Chatham, Grafton, Shelburne and Camden construed the Charter strictly,
claiming for the Crown the eminent domain in all the provinces in
which the Company exercised a virtual sovereignty. Townshend, on
the other hand, boldly claimed for the Company the prerogatives of
an independent State, and carried Conway with him. The extravagance
of the contention was patent; and Parliament, without expressly affirhiing,
tacitly recognised the title of the Crown by leasing the new territories
to the Company for two years at an annual rent of ^£"400,000, and
restricting; the Company's dividend, in the meantime, to ' ten per cent.
The measure, which was " managed " by Dyson and supported by the
rest of the King's Friends, was carried, and was afterwards continued,
with certain modifications, for five years.
Grafton's overtures to Rockingham for a reconstruction of the
Administration upon a broad basis led to much consultation, but to
no agreement either as to men or measures. The general feeling among
the Opposition was that Chatham had better be allowed to "run
himself aground." This deplorable decision paved the way for the
ultimate triumph of the Court. On the premature death of Charles
Townshend, the seals of the Exchequer were given to Lord North
(September, 1767). About the same time, Viscount Townshend succeeded
Lord Bristol. in the Irish viceroyalty, and Jenkinson was transfewed
from the Admiralty to the Treasury Board. Grafton, acting upon a
hint dropped by Chatham, now completely disabled, was at laist resolved
1767-9] Impotence of the Government. 439
to detach, if possible, the Bedford group from the Opposition ; and,
though Bedford himself steadfastly refused office, he released his followers
from their self-denying ordinance. The result was that Hillsborough
was accorded the status of Colonial Secretary — a guarantee for an un-
conciliatory policy towards America; Conway yielded the seals to
Weymouth, retaining however cabinet rank ; Gower replaced Northington
as President of the Council, and Rigby succeeded North in the Pay Office.
To everybody's surprise, a new Solicitor-General was found in John
Dunning, a stuff gownsman who had distinguished himself as counsel
for Wilkes' printer, Dryden Leach.
Coalition Governments are apt to be weak, and weak Governments
are apt to drift into war ; but the Grafton Administration, as now
patched up, was too divided even to drift. In the east of Europe,
events were marching towards the dismemberment of Poland ; in the
south, the acquisition of Corsica by France was imminent. The Polish
crisis was too remote to interest British statesmen seriously, and the
Cabinet had thus no temptation to intervene otherwise than by friendly
counsel ; but the Corsican question, involving as it did the aggrandise-
ment of France at the expense of a people which had long maintained
a heroic struggle for independence, might easily have been so handled
as to lead to a renewal of hostilities. That such was not the case was
due rather to the impotence than to the prudence of the Government.
Shelburne took a high tone; Grafton was lukewarm ; the rest of the
Cabinet were either indifferent or opposed to overt intervention. Thus,
while Ministers debated, and privily furnished Paoli with arms (July,
1768), Choiseul made good his hold on the island.
On the American question the Government were no less divided.
The Assembly of Massachusetts Bay which had taken the lead in
organising resistance to the collection of Townshend's taxes was dissolved
by Hillsborough's orders (July, 1768), but continued to sit under
another name. TTie agitation grew and spread, and the turbulence of
the populace was hardly restrained by military force. It began to be
plain that the duties must either be remitted or levied at a cost dis-
proportionate to their value. The Bedford section of the Cabinet
demanded enforcement coiite qtie coMe ; while Grafton, Camden, Shel-
burne, Conway, and Granby advised their repeal. Chatham, anticipating
Shelbume's dismissal, and Shelburne, despairing of Chatham's recovery,
resigned without concert about the same time (October 12, 19); and
thus the cause of conciliation lost its most earnest advocates. Shelbume's
place was taken by Weymouth, whom Rochford succeeded in the
Northern Department ; Bristol receiving the Privy Seal (October-
November). At the close of the year, a place was found for Dyson at
the Treasury Board. The struggle in the Cabinet terminated, on May 1,
1769, in a compromise — the repeal of the duties on paper, glass and
colours, the rest being retained. Futile in itself, this act of grace was
440 Legislation.-^ Wilkes once more. [i768-9
communicated to the colonies by Hillsborough in a manner so offensive
as to convert it into an affront. A league for the total exclusion of
British goods from the colonies was organised and assumed formidable
proportions.
Circumstances were hardly more favourable to a sound domestic
policy than to a reasonable treatment of the colonies. Nevertheless, in
the course of the years 1768-9 two important additions were made to the
Statute Booii. The Nullum Tempus Act abolished the ancient rule of
law by which no lapse of time was pleadable in bar of a crown claim, and
made sixty years' possession of landed estate an indefeasible title ; and, as
noted elsewhere, the Irish Octennial Act struck a blow at the corrupt
oligarchy to which the fugitive or absentee Viceroys — with Townshend
began the rule of residence — had been wont to farm out the government.
In 1769 the Court gained a signal triumph by carrying an Act for
discharge of the debts, amounting to =£"500,000, upon the Civil List
without account given of the purposes for which the expenditure had
been incurred.
Meanwhile, no small share of the attention of Parliament was ab-
sorbed by Wilkes. Early in 1768 he came back to England, and by the
supineness of the Government was suffered to stand for Parliament at the
general election. Returned for Middlesex (March 88), he surrendered to
bis outlawry in the King's Bench and was committed to the King's Bench
prison (April 27). The vicinity of the gaol was soon thronged with a
rabble of disorderly patriots. Their demonstrations daily increased in
violence, and, on May 10, the Riot Act having been read, the mob was
dispersed by the military not without loss of life. One of the soldiers
was tried for murder, but was acquitted. Wilkes was subsequently re-
lieved of the outlawry on a technical flaw, but was sentenced on the prior
convictions to two consecutive terms of ten and twelve months' imprison-
ment, with a fine of d&lOOO and the obligation to give recognisances in
^1000, with two sureties in ^£"500 each, for his good behaviour for seven
years after his discharge (June 18). The judgment was affirmed by the
House of Lords on writ of error ; a petition presented in Wilkes' behalf
to the House of Commons was dismissed ; and a stinging paragraph on
the precautions taken by the Government in anticipation of the riot,
which he had caused to be inserted in the St James's Chronicle (Decem-
ber 10, 1768), was voted a seditious libel, for which, in addition to his
previous offences, he was again expelled the House (February 4, 1769).
On his immediate reelection, the House annulled the return, and de-
clared him " incapable of being elected to serve as a member in this
present Parliament." Other returns were also annulled, and eventually
the Court nominee, Colonel Luttrell, was declared duly elected, though
he had been beaten at the polls, and the return was falsified accordingly
(April 15).
The proceedings were technically defensible, for each branch of the
1769-72] Wilkes, Junius, and the Constitution. 441
legislature has exclusive cognisance of the capacity of its members.
Nevertheless, they were totally repugnant to the spirit of the Constitu-
tion, and, if sanctioned by the acquiescence of the electorate, would have
established a precedent of most dangerous consequence, capable indeed of
indefinite abuse, even to the annihilation of free speech and the trans-
formation of the House of Commons from a representative assembly into
a close corporation perpetuating itself by ostracism and cooptation. It
was, therefore, no spirit of faction, but a sober appreciation of the gravity
of the crisis, which now prompted George GrenviUe to lay aside personal
considerations, and to enter the lists as the champion of the man on whom
not so many years before he had led the first attack. His cold, grave
constitutionalism fell, however, unheeded on ears deafened by passion and
subservience. Wilkes was known to be still in the last degree obnoxious
to the King, and the King's Friends were now in the ascendant. Peti-
tions were multiplied in vain. Their rejection at St Stephen's, as at
St James', was a foregone conclusion ; and, though constitutionalism gained
an unexpected champion in Wedderburn, the shortsighted and suicidal
arrogance of the majority found a specious apologist in ithe young
member for Midhurst, Lord Holland's third son, Charles James Fox,
By all this Wilkes, of course, gained vastly in popularity. A society
organised by his friend Home londer the title of " Supporters of the Bill
of Bights " canonised him as a patriot, and raised sufficient funds to set
him free from pecuniary embarrassment on his discharge from prison.
In the Letters of Junius (1769-72), which, whoever may have been
the scribe that turned their classic periods, represent perhaps more nearly
the sympathies and antipathies of Lord Temple than those of any other
statesman of the day, the Wilkes case naturally occupied a prominent
place. One of them indeed amounted to nothing less than a direct
arraignment of the King as the prime mover in the persecution of the
" patriot," and as thus, in effect, the subverter of the Constitution. This
licence, unparalleled since the appearance of the North Briton, No. 45,
provoked a fresh attack upon the liberty of the Press. The letter had
appeared in the Public Advertiser of December 19, 1769, and had been at
once reprinted in the London Museum and the Evening Post. Ex officio
informations were filed by Attorney-General De Grey in the Court of
King's Bench against the printers and publishers of all three papers. In
each case Lord Mansfield, in strict conformity with precedent, reserved
for the Court the determination of the question of law ; and^ so instructed,
the juries in one case acquitted, in another convicted, the defendants,
while in the third (that of Woodfall, the original publisher) they returned
an evasive verdict of " guilty of printing and publishing only " (June 13,
1770) — a form of words without legal import, upon which it was im-
possible to found a judgment. This conflict between judge and jury led
to much discussion in the House of Lords ; but Mansfield's ruling, though
vigorously impugned by Camden (December 10), commanded the general
442 Burke's policy. — Rally of the Opposition. [i7V0-9a
assent of the legal profession, and continued to be followed by judges and
disputed by juries, until the controversy was closed by legislative enact-
ment in 1792 (32 Geo. Ill, c. 60, commonly known as Fox' Libel Act).
The crisis elicited from Burke a manifesto entitled TTioughts on the
Cause of the Present Discontents (1770), in which he sought to deduce all
the disorders of the body politic from one and the same source, the secret
and insidious influence of the Court — as if the Whigs had been incapable
of intrigue and quite unversed in the arts of corruption, and had not, by
their jefilousy of Chatham, their determination to adhere at any cost to
the obsolete system of " general cabinet advice," and their own inter-
minable dissensions, given the Court its opportunity. In discountenancing
the popular cry for Triennial Parliaments, Burke was doubtless wise ;
but there was more to be said for a Place Bill than he was prepared to
acknowledge ; and, in finding his panacea in the revival of the old Whig
rigime, he gave no hint of the means by which this-consummation was to
be attained. His truest admirers must recognise that in this pamphlet
the political sagacity of which his name has become a symbol is none
too apparent ; but, as yet, statesmen of all schools, with the single excep-
tion of Chatham, lacked either the insight to perceive or the courage
to proclaim that the defective, the all but illusory, representation of the
people was the true cause of the confusions, and its reform the paramount
need j of the State.
In Parliament, the campaign against the Court was opened in form
by motions for the disfranchisement of revenue officers (too often mere
placemen), an account of the debt on the Civil List (which was shrewdly
suspected to have been incurred for corrupt purposes), and a scrutiny of
the Pension List. Defeat was inevitable ; but the programme became an
integral part of Whig policy and bore fruit in due season. The Opposi^
tion was led by Chatham, now completely recovered and at one not only
with Temple and George Grenville but (by the death of Newcastle) with
Rockingham. The agitation in favour of Wilkes was accordingly pressed
with the utmost heat, even to the verge of provoking a conflict between
the two Houses, while the King was plied with Remonstrances on the
part of the City of London^ The Remonstrances were treated with con-
temptj and the Government triumphed in the divisions ; but the dismissal
of Camden, and the secession of Grafton, Granby, Bristol, and Dunning,
left gaps which were hardly to be filled. For Granby no competent
successor could be found, and the Commandership-in-chief was in
consequence left in abeyance. The Privy Seal was given to Halifax
(February 26, 1770). North, retaining the Exchequer, succeeded nomi-
nally to the Treasury, but remained in effect only finance Minister,
the real direction of affairs being assumed by the King, whose most con-
fidential advisers were Mansfield and Sir Gilbert Elliot, the Treasurer
of the Navy. Dyson was also high in favour, and generally supposed
to be the main channel of influence. Edward Thurlow, who might be
1770-2] Futile concession to Amei'ica.-The Falkland Isles. 443
trusted to serve the King's turn so long as pay and promotion were
to be had, was made Solicitor-General. A lawyer of a similar typej
Sir Fletcher Nprton, who, however, proved a thorn in the side of the
Court, was chosen Speaker of the House of Commons. Charles Yorke,
importuned by the King to accept the Great Seal, yielded against his
better judgment, and died within three days — as it was supposed, of
shame and remorse that he should have deserted his party at such a
crisis (January 20, 1770). The Seal was then put in commission ; and
eventually, Henry Bathurst, the least able of the Commissioners, was
elected as Chancellor, being created, on January 24, 1771, Lord Apsley.
In regard to America, the Government carried the remission of
the port duties a step further, retaining only that on tea as a badge of
subjection. In the way of domestic legislation, the most important result
of the session of 1770 was George GrenviUe's Act, by which election
petitions were referred to Select Committees, a form of procedure only
superseded by the transference of the jurisdiction to the Courts of Law
in the reign of Queen Victoria. It proved to be its author's last, as it
was certainly his most important, achievement : he died on November 13,
1770, and, by the consequent dissolution of his connexion, the Court
gained a recruit in Henry Howard, Earl of Suffolk.
When Grenville passed aw^ay. Parliament was reassembling to discuss
matter of more stirring interest than economic reform or the jurisdic-
tion on election petitions. As has been related in an earlier chapter,
a dispute with Spain about the possession of the Falkland Isles
threatened war ; and when Parliament met, the situation was so grave
that nearly ^1,500,000 was added to the naval estimates, and a fleet
was collected at Spithead. The Facte de Famille, however, disappointed
expectation ; and Charles III, unprepared for a single-handed contest with
Great Britain, disclaimed responsibility for the action of the Governor
of Buenos Ayres, and consented (January 22, 1771) to restore Port
Egmont, which had been occupied by the Spaniards. The restitution was
made on September 16, 1772, but without either acknowledgment of the
British right or reparation for the insult offered to the British flag;
and the withdrawal of the British garrison followed so soon afterwards
as to seem like a virtual recognition of the Spanish title. During the
crisis Weymouth resigned, doubtless to mark his disapprobation of a
pusillanimous polity. He was succeeded by Rocliford, the Northern
Seals being transferi'ed to Sandwich.
By this affair the country suffered even more in purse than in pride.
Of the extraordinary naval supply no account was ever given, and its due
appropriation to the purposes for which it was voted would, as matters
then stood, have been nothing short of a miracle. The corruption, from
which no department of government remained free, was especially marked
where wise economy was most of all necessary — in the Admiralty, and
was here allowed to shelter itself under the pretext that the fluctuating
444 Corruption in the Admiralty -Freedom of the Press. [1771-4
exigencies of the service precluded strict account. Hence a ruinous
proportion of the sums annually voted for the repair, construction, and
equipment of ships, was absorbed by the rapacity of subordinate officials,
whom their superiors were either unable or unwilling to expose or control.
The mischief was the more serious because, the supply of oak having fallen
short, not a few ships had been built of timber of inferior quality, and
were already rotten ; while France, with the advantage of a better school
of naval architecture than the British, had made, and was still making,
every exertion to place her navy upon such a footing as might enable her
once more seriously to contest the empire of the sea. Hawke, who can
hardly have been blind to the gravity of the situation, was by this time
superannuated, and resigned (January 9, 1771). Sandwich was, for purely
party reasons, appointed his successor — a man entirely without nautical
experience, and far too nvuch engrossed by his pleasures to concern himself
with the disagreeable details of administration. The Northern Seals were
given to Halifax and, on his death in the following June, to SuiFolk, the
vacant Privy Seal being transferred to Grafton. About the same time
Thurlow was made Attorney-General, and Wedderbum, weary of opposi-
tion, succeeded him as Solicitor-General.
The sanction of Parliament to the Spanish Convention was not
obtained without long and acrimonious debates, of which, when reported.
Parliament had good reason to be ashamed. The publication of debates
was still technically a breach of privilege, and the House of Commons
on this occasion saw fit to resent it as such by citing the publishers to
its bar. Default being made in appearance, one of the culprits was
taken into custody by the Serjeant-at-arms, and the other two were
arrested under a royal proclamation. All three arrests were made within
the City of London, and without the concurrence of a City magistrate.
As this involved a breach of the City Charter, Lord Mayor Brass
Crosby, with the concurrence of Aldermen Wilkes and Oliver, discharged
the prisoners, and committed the messenger by whom the Speaker's
warrant had been executed to gaol. A citation to the bar of the House
of Commons was evaded by Wilkes, on the ground that his incapacity
placed him beyond its jurisdiction. Crosby and Oliver attended, but
only to refuse submission, and be committed to the Towei- (March 25,
27). There they were visited by Rockingham, Burke, and other leading
Whigs ; and, on the prorogation, they came forth to find their popu-
larity enhanced and the cause for which they had contended virtually won.
A' privilege of a different nature was asserted in 1774. An alleged libel
on the Speaker (in the Public Advertiser of February 11), being attri-
buted on inconclusive evidence to John Home (afterwards Home Tooke),
the House of Commons usurped the functions of a Court of justice,
summoned and interrogated the compositors, and was defeated by their
profession of total ignorance of the authorship of the libel.
The session of 1772 produced the Royal Marriage Act (12 Geo. IH,
1772-80] Royal Marriage Act. — East India Act. 445
c. 11), by which descendants of the late Kiiig other than the issue of
princesses married, or who should thereafter marry, into foreign famihes,
were disabled from marrying without the King's consent, unless, being of
the age of twenty-five yearSj they should give twelve months' notice to
the Privy Council of their intention so to marry, and Parliament should
not in the meantime disapprove the union. The measure was occasioned
by the marriage of the King's third brother, Henry Frederick, Duke of
Cumberland, with Anne, sister of Colonel Luttrell (Wilkes' supplanter
in the House of Commons), and widow of Christopher Horton, of Catton,
Derbyshire. Such an alliance was extremely distasteful to both the
King and the Queen ; and the extent of the royal prerogative in regard
to such matters had not as yet been precisely determined. That it
governed the marriages of the King's grandchildren had been decided
during the long and embittered contest between George I and the Prince
of Wales (1718); but there was no precedent in regard to collaterals, nor
were the majority of the judges prepared to make one. Thus, though
in terms declaratory, the measure was in fact an innovation, and as such
was resisted stoutly by Rockingham, Shelbume and Charles James Fox,
who had made his d(:bui as a ministerialist. Upon Cumberland's banish-
ment from Court, his elder brother, William Henry, Duke of Gloucester,
magnanimously avowed his own prior secret marriage with Maria,
Countess Dowager Waldegrave, an illegitimate daughter of Sir Edward
Walpole, and was likewise banished; nor was it until 1780 that the
brothers were restored to favour.
The session of 1773 was almost exclusively devoted to Indian affairs,
of which a connected account will be found in a subsequent chapter.
By a, complication of causes, chief among them the recklessness of the
Directors and the rapacity of their servants, the East India Company
had been brought to the verge of ruin. Parliament met the Company's
more pressing needs by a loan of ^^1,400,000 on no very onerous teriiis,
while taking security for the better management of its affairs by Lord
North's Regulating Act, which in effect remodelled its constitution,
substituting for the annual election of the entire Court of Directors
a rota so arranged that in the ordinary course there should never be
more than six places to be filled at any one election. The presidencies
of Bombay and Madras were subordinated to that of Bengal, and the
administration of the latter was vested in a Governor-General and
Council of Four. The Act constituted Warren Hastings the first Gover-
nor-General, and named his Council ; but the appointment and removal of
succeeding Governors-General and their Coimcils were left to the unfet-
tered discretion of the Court of Directors. This measure, of which more
is said below, encountered strong opposition on the part of the Whigs —
two protests against it were entered in the Journal of the House of
Lords — an opposition grounded partly on the abrogation of chartered
rights, partly on the extension of the royal prerogative which it involved,
oa. xiii.
446 Exclifsibn of East Indian.tea from American ports. [i774-6
The, reform which it effected was however salutary and amply justified
the means. The Company's Chartet had not contemplated the assump-
tion of imperial dominion by A trading corporation. It would have been
sheer superstition to have held it sacrosanct in circumstances so novel.
The title of the Crown to the territorial acquisitions of the Company
was incontestable, and might reasonably have been held to warrant
changes far more drastic than those which the Act introduced. The
degree of centralisation which it effected was indeed no more than was
essential, and subsequent events unfortunately proved that its provisions
against malpractices were none too stringent.
A minor measure of the session, consisting of a slight boon to the
emban'assed Company, the remission of the home customs duty on their
consignments of tea to America, proved productive of effects wholly
unexpected and out of all proportion to its intrinsic importance. Since the
tea could thus be offered at a reduced price and the American import duty
was only 3d. per pound avoirdupois, it was feared in the colonies that
the loyalty of the people to their non-importation restrictions would be
severely strained by the new regulation. The emergency nerved the more
fiery spirits to extraordinary measures; and, as is narrated in another
volume, three of the Company's ships were boarded in Boston harbour
by a party of armed men disguised as Mohawks, who discharged their
cargoes into the sea. At New York a single cargo was landed under the
.guns of a ship of war, and was inimediately secured under lock and key.
From other ports the ships were sent home with their cargoes. The rebelr
lious temper evinced by these proceedings evoked a correspondingly high
spirit in the mother country. Opposition was for the time extinguished,
and in the course of the year 1774 Parliament passed several stringent
coercive measures. The further use of Boston Port was prohibited.
The Charter of Massachusetts Bay was annulled, and provision was made
for changing the venue within the colonies or to Great Britain, when
lieedful in order to secure a fair trial of persons capitally prosecuted for
acts done in enforcing the law. At the same time the province of Quebec
was extended so as to include parts of the basins of the Ohio and Missis-
sippi, and converted into a crown colony, the French population being
conciliated by a guarantee of religious equality and their ancient laws
and customs except in criminal cases. These measures converted Fox
from a wavering supporter into a determined foe of the Government.
In the autumn. Parliament was dissolved, and the Opposition returned
from the polls, a demoralised remnant of seventy-three members. Wilkes,
now permitted to take his seat, distinguished himself by his zeal in
behalf of the colpnies, and by the well-considered plan for the redistri-
bution of seats which he laid before Parliament on March 21, 1776; He
failed, however, to make a sensible impression on the Ministerial cohorts.
The need of Parliamentary Reform was as yet unrecognised by all parties,
and, as has been shown elsewhere, the Government was intent on pacif)riug
i775r-6] Commencement of hostilities. 447
the colonies by a judicious rhixture of cajolery and coercion. Thus, in
1776, Chatham's moderate proposals, the withdrawal of the troops from
Boston, the suspension of the obnoxious Acts, the delegation of the
exclusive right of taxation to the Assemblies, and the restriction of the
powers of the Vice- Admiralty Courts to their ancient limits, were sum-
marily rejected; and the defeat in the House of Commons of Burke's
more logical scheme, which would have repealed what Chatham proposed
to suspend, and secured the judges against removal except by the King
in Council upon complaint by the Assemblies, Governors, Councils, or
Houses of Representatives, but was otherwise substantially identical
with that of Chatham, was a foregone conclusion. On the other hand.
North's illusory concession of temporary immunity; from taxation to
those colonies which should place at the disposal of Parliament such
supplies as Parliament should deem adequate was carried by a majority
of the usual dimensions — to be decisively rejected by Cpngress, In the
same session not only the external but the intercolonial trade of Massa-
chusetts Bay, New Hampshire, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Providence
Plantation, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, and South
Carolina was placed under severe restriction, while the military and naval
forces of the Crown available for the coercion of the colonies were
augmented. By the Prohibitory Act (1776), the entire external commerce
of the colonies was laid under interdict, removable at the discretion of the
Crown. Ministers, however, remained without a concerted plan of action,
while the colonial militia surprised the principal fortresses on the, Canadian
frontier, invested Boston, and at Lexington and Bunker Hill (April 19
and June 17, 1775) came jnto collision with the King's troops.
In November, 1775, Grafton, who had hoped against hope that
hostilities might be averted, resigned, and was succeeded as Lord Privy
Seal by Dartmouth, the office of Secretary for the Colonies, (which had
been transferred to him from Hillsborough in the autumn of 1772) being
given to Lord George Germain, whose competence for administration
was apparently inferred from his proved incapacity for military com-
mand. About the same time, Rochford retired on a pension, and was
succeeded as Secretary of State by Weymouth. In opposition as in
office, Grafton still clung to the hope that, even at the eleventh, hour, an
irreparable rupture with the colonies might be averted by a very simple
expedient. The Government had turned a deaf ear to the petitions of
Congress, the last, presented by Richard Penn, being contemptuously
dismissed — largely, it would seem, through the influence of Mansfield.
Congress could not be expected to persevere in an evidently futile pro-
cedure. But Congress might be invited to present a petition to the
Peace Commissioners in America appointed imder the Prohibitoiy Act,
and hostilities might be suspended pending its consideration. Such a
petition, if considered by the Commissioners in a conciliatory spirit,
might prove the basis of an accommodation. Accordingly, on March 14,
448 Lightheartedness of the British Government. [i776-9
1776, Grafton moved for an address to the Throne, praying that the
necessary powers might be delegated to the Commissioners, The defeat
of this motion, after a long and animated debate, marks the turning
point in the struggle. It was followed by the Declaration of Independ-
ence (July 4), and the confederation of the Thirteen States.
Towards the close of the year Rockingham virtually seceded from
Parliament, and carried a great part of his followers with him. Chatham
was at that time once more disabled by ill health ; nor was it until the
summer of 1777 that he was sufficiently recovered to resume the lead of
the Opposition. He retained much of his old power of declamation ; but
the strange inconsequence with which, while deprecating the continuance
of hostilities, he set his face against the recognition of the independence
of the colonies — his last speech was a vehement repudiation of that policy
(April 7, 1778) — raises a doubt whether his return to power would not
have been productive of more harm than good. It was vain to hope that
after the treatment which they had received the "removal of accumulated
grievances" would have sufficed to bring the colonies back to their
allegiance. A nation had been born, and it would never abdicate its
sovereign rights.
The effect of the Prohibitory Act was to drive the colonial trade into
foreign ports. Holland especially profited by this clandestine traffic, of
which the island of St Eustatius became a principal emporium, and to
which a quasi-legal sanction was given by the connivance of the States
General in a Treaty of Amity and Commerce, concluded, on September 4,
1778, between the city of Amsterdam and Congress. Nor was the recep-
tion accorded to the merchantmen denied to the privateers of the
Americans. To check the depredations of the privateers, the British
Government issued letters of marque in profusion, and deprived persons
suspected of piracy in American waters of the benefit of the Habeas
Corpus Act. The resources of the colonists on land were greatly under-
rated, and the possibility of foreign intervention was ignored. The first
war loan amounted to no more than .£5,500,000 — with so light a heart
did the Government enter on the contest. The loan rose in 1778 to
,£'6,480,000, and in 1779 to J'7,490,000. ITie additional taxation was
on the whole raised judiciously, being for the most part laid on luxuries;
but it was supplemented by drafts on the Sinking Fund. The most
grievous error of the Government was their neglect of the navy, which at
the outbreak of hostilities was so weak that the Channel Fleet was only
maintained at its nominal strength by the inclusion of several unseaworthy
hulks, while the squadron commanded by Lord Howe in American waters
was not only inadequate for the maintenance of an effective blockade over
any considei-able extent of sea-board, but barely sufficed for the discharge
bf the dutifes subsidiary to the military operations which were the most
important services at first demanded of it. The colonists kept up in the
vicinity of their coasts a desultory warfare, which in 1777 John Paul
iT'zs-so] The Anti-British league. 449
Jones carried into British waters. The nearest approach to a regular
fleet which they possessed was annihilated by Sir George CoUiet in the
Penobscot River on August 14, 1779. MeanwhilCj however, a more
formidable enemy had appeared on the scene.
By the Treaty of Paris (Februaiy 6, 1778), France and the United
States entered into a defensive alliance, which was to become offensive in
the event of war between France and Great Britain. The Treaty escaped
the vigilance of the British ambassador. Lord Stormont, though Franklin^s
presence at Paris caused him some uneasiness, and the Government first
heard of it from Grafton some days before its official communication.
To France and Spain the independence of the United States was a
secondary, the conquest of the British possessions in the West Indies, the
Gulf of Mexico, and the Mediterranean the primary, object. Never-
theless, Spain was only with difficulty induced to comply with the terms
of the Family Compact, and did not join the alliance till after the rejec-
tion by the British Government of her proffered mediation (June 16,
1779). The rupture with France brought in its train a rupture with the
Dutch. While giving harbourage to Paul Jones, the States General
refused the succours which by the Treaty of Westminster (March 8-lS,
1677-8) they were bound to furnish in the event of a Bourbon aggression,
and allowed their merchantmen to carry into French ports cargoes of naval
stores and timber suitable for the construction of ships of war. These
cargoes were treated as contraband by the British Government, and some
of the merchant ships were accordingly arrested. The States General
joined the Armed Neutrality, and Great Britain, fiirther exasperated by
the discovery of the secret Treaty of Amity of 1778 between the city
of Amsterdam and the American Congress, declared war against the
Republic (December 20, 1780).
In undertaking the coercion of the American colonies George III had
erred mainly through ignorance, believing that their militia could never
cope with regular troops. Grafton's warning that the employment of
German mercenaries " would only increase the disgrace and never effect
his purpose" he received with unfeigned amazement. To the risk of
foreign intervention he was blinded by the fixed idea that the House of
Bourbon would never ally itself with insurgents. As the prospect
darkened, he became less sanguine ; but he still clung tenaciously to the
hope of avoiding a formal concession of independence, and, cajolery
having been tried and found wanting, he stooped to conciliation. So in
1778 the tea duty was repealed, and a Commission appointed (April 5)
with authority to negotiate with Congress as a quasi-independent Power,
and in the meantime to suspend obnoxious laws. A more homogeneous
Commission might well have been chosen ; but, even so, the time for such
expedients had gone by for ever.
To his " friends " the King clave more closely than they to him.
Germain resigned in a fit of the spleen (March 3), but unfortunately
C. M. H. VI. CH. XIII. 29
450 The Administration virtually reconstructed. [i778-9
repented and resumed office. North was eager to make way for Chatham
and lacked only the resolution to resign. Both before and after Chatham's
death, overtures were made to several members of the Opposition for a
coalition ; but, as no material change of policy was purposed, the Whigs
saw clearly that the real object of the King was merely to seduce as 'many
of them as might serve to strenigthen his tottering Administration, and
with one consent held aloof. If anything had been needed to vindicate
their sagacity, it would have been the transference of the Great Seal from
Apsley, now Earl Bathurst (June 1, 1778), to Thurlow, the truculent and
trumpet-tongued coryphaeus of the party of coercion, and the substitu-
tion.for Barrington as Secretary at War of Jenkinson, the most subservient
of courtiers (December 16). North, whose better judgment disapproved
the prolongation of hostilities, was by this time so weary of office
that only the lucrative sinecures of Warden of the Cinque Ports
and Constable of Dover Castle reconciled him to the retention of it
(June .4)., Lord Suffolk, the shameless apologist of the employment of
Redskin warriors against the colonists, was with difficulty persuaded to
l-eniain at his post until his death in March, 1779. To take his place,
Stormont, a diplomatist of proved incapacity, was recalled from Paris
(October). On the subsequent defection of Gower and Weymouth,
Bathurst became President of the Council and the vacant Secretary's
place was given to Hillsborough (November). These changes, with
the appointraent of Carlisle, now returned from America, to' the
Presidency of the Board of Trade, constituted a virtual reconstruction
of the Administration.
In the House of Lords, Thurlow, who was joined in June, 1780, by
Wedderburn (created Baron Loughborough), early establishe'd an ascen-
dancy which would have reduced the Opposition to impotence, even had
it not been paralysed by the reluctance of Shelburne and Camden to
follow the lead of Rockingham in demanding the immediate recognition
of the independence of the United States. In the House of Commons,
the cause of Parliamentary Reform made some little progress. A Place
Bill (for the disqualification of persons interested in government contracts
not made at a public bidding), which had been summarily rejected on its
first introduction by Sir Philip Jennings Clerke in 1778, was reintroduced
in 1779 and defeated by a reduced majority.
The naval war opened inauspiciously for the British, Only twenty
sail of the line and three frigates could at first be mustered for the
defence of the Narrow Seas ; and with this inadequate force Admiral
Keppel sailed from Portsmouth on June 13, 1778. In the Bay of Biscay
he captured some French frigates, and from their papers first learned the
greatly superior strength of the fleet (thirty-two sail of the line with ten
or twelve frigates) which lay off Brest under Admiral d'Orvilliers. This
compelled him to return to Portsmouth for reinforcements, and it was only
by dint of great exertions that he was at length able to encounter
1778-9] Unsatisfactory state of the navy. 451
d'Orvilliers with a force approximately equal in regatd to the mere
number of ships, but otherwise decidedly inferior in material. The fleets
engaged off Ouessant on July 27, but without decisive result; for, though
at the close of the action the advantage rested With the British, the
IVench made good their escape. For this failure Vice- Admiral Palliser
was held responsible by public opinion, and Admiral Keppel by Vice-
Admiral Palliser. Both officers were tried by Court-martial (1779) and
acquitted, it being established that Palliser's ships were too damaged for
pursuit; but upon Palliser rested the stigma of having brought an
unfounded accusation against his superior officer.
A parliamentary enquiry into the administration of the navy, de-
manded in the House of Lords by Bristol, in the House of Commons by
Fox, was stifled ; but the emphatic testimony not only of Keppel but of
Lord Howe, who had recently resigned his American command, to the
deplorable condition of the service was sealed by their retirement from it,
and their example was followed by other officers of distinction. Howe was
not the man to be moved either by pique or by panic, nor had he thrown
up his command without grave cause. With an inadequate force (nine
sail of the line and a few frigates) he had been left to cope with a
squadron of twelve sail of the line and several frigates of superior armament
under Count d'Estaing. The French commander had sailed from Toulon
on April 13, 1778, and had been delayed for some weeks in the Mediter-
ranean. The Admiralty had had early intelligence of his movements,
but had made no attempt to intercept him until his destination was
accurately known (Jurie) ; and the intercepting sqUadron under Vice-
Admiral Byrou had ai:rived too late and in an uhsea worthy condition by
no means wholly imputable to the tempestuous weather which it had
encountered. In the meantime, Howe, apprised of d'Estaing's approach
by one of his own frigates, had succeeded in barring the access to New
York and Khode Island alike, until a storm of unusual violence so
shattered the French ships that they were compelled to take refuge in
Boston harbour. That Rhode Island and New York had not fallen into
the hands of the French was thus entirely due to the vigilance and
resource of the British Admiral, aided by the chapter of accidents. It
was this experience which had determined Howe to return to England,
and retire from the service ; nor did he change his mind until the fall of
North's Administration,
In November d'Estaing, evading Byron's blockading squadron, sailed
from Boston for the West Indies, where Bouille, Governor of Martinique,
had already reduced Dominica. D'Estaing, with his twelve sail of the
line and 7000 troops, arrived just .too late to prevent the capture of
St Lucia by Rear- Admiral Barrington and Commodore Hotham, whose
joint forces amounted to seven sail of the line with 5000 troops under
Major-General Grant (December 14, 1778). The advent of Byron with
ten sail of the .line (January, J779) gave the British a temporary superiority
cH. XIII. 29—2
452 The War in West Indian and European waters. [1779-82
of strength, which was maintained until the end of June, when the arrival
of reinforcements from Brest turned the scale in favour of the French.
Byron, who had the chief command, was embarrassed by convoy duty,
and failed to prevent the reduction of St Vincent (June 18) and Grenada
(July 4) by d'Estaing. Worsted in a general action off St George,
Grenada (July 6), the British commanders withdrew to St Christopher,
and soon afterwards sailed for England. D'Estaing, after refitting at Cap
Fran9ois, mustered twenty ships of the line, with which he sailed to
Savannah ; but, being repulsed with great loss in the general assault
on that place (October 9), retvurned to France.
On the eastern side of the Atlantic the conduct of the war reflected
no credit on the Allies. The French recovered Senegal (January —
February, 1779) but abandoned Goree to the British (May). Ttey
massed troops to the number of 60,000 in Normandy and Britanny, and
were beaten in two attacks on Jersey (May, 1779 and January, 1781).
The Franco-Spanish fleet (sixty-six ships of the line) sailed up the
Channel in the autumn of 1779 as far as Plymouth, but did not succeed
in bringing on a general engagement with the British fleet, hardly more
than half as strong, under Admiral Hardy. In the autumn of the
following year it made a similar idle parade between Ouessant and the
SciUy Isles. In the North Sea, the Dutch Rear- Admiral Zoutman tried
conclusions with Vice-Admiral Hyde Parker off" the Dogger Bank on
August 5, 1781. The' fleets seem to have been about on a par, for each
commander had seven ships of the line, and, if four of the British ships
were so old as hardly to be worked, it is probable that the Dutch were
in no better plight. The contest was maintained with great courage
and carnage for more than three hours, when it terminated, by reason
of the shattered condition of the ships, without decided advantage on
either side.
In the Mediterranean the British squadron at the outbreak of
hostilities consisted of only one sixty -gun ship, three frigates and a
sloop ; nor was it reinforced in time to prevent the blockade of Gibraltar
and Minorca. Port Mahon, gallantly defended by General Murray, was
reduced by sickness and famine to capitulate (February 5, 1782).
Gibraltar was more fortunate : to the ample relief convoyed from home
by Admiral Rodney in command of thirty-six sail, of which twenty-two
were of the line, were added five Spanish ships of the line and twelve
Spanish provision ships captured en route off Capes Finisterre and
St Vincent (January 8 and 16, 1780); and the subsequent rehefs by
Vice-Admiral Darby in command of the "grand fleet" of twenty-eight
sail of the line (April, 1781), and Lord Howe with thirty-four sail of
the line (October, 1782), enabled General Eliott and his heroic garrison
to defy the assaults of the enemy until the Peace.
During the years 1780-2 the West Indian and American stations
were the theatre of operations of great interest. In March, 1780, a French
1780-1] The War in West Indian and American waters. 453
fleet of twenty-two sail of the line under Guichen lay in Fort Royal Bay,
Martinique, on the look-out for a Spanish fleet under Don Jose Solano ;
the two commanders were to join their forces for the conquest of Jamaica
and New York. They reckoned, however, without Admiral Rodney,
who assumed the command in the Leeward Islands station towards the
end of the month and, with, roughly speaking, a parity of force, fought
three engagements with the French (April 17, May 15 and 19), by
which he so crippled their fleet that, though the junction with the
Spaniards was effected, its purpose was frustrated. Guichen, with the
bulk of his fleet, sailed to Cadiz, while Solano put into Havana.
In July, 1780, the American station was guarded by only four sail of
the line under Vice-Admiral Arbuthnot, and Rhode Island had been
denuded of troops for the defence of New York. Arbuthnot was by no
means a brilliant commander ; but in such circumstances it was hardly in
his power to prevent the occupation of the island by Rochambeau's
six thousand veterans, convoyed by seven sail of the line under Temay,
Reinforced by Rear-Admiral Graves with five sail of the line, he
succeeded, by an action off" Cape Henry (March 16, 1781) in frustrating
a descent on the Chesapeake by des Touches, ' Temay's successor in
command ; but a tactical error, the reckless exposure of his van, seriously
impaired the value of the victory. He was in consequence recalled, and
the command devolved upon Graves.
In May, 1781, Don Bernardo Galvez, Governor of Louisiana,
reduced Pensacola, and thereby recovered West Florida.
In the spring of 1781 Rodney occupied the Dutch West India
Islands, a conquest as easy as lucrative, but which left the rest of the
islands almost at the mercy of Count de Grasse, who succeeded Guichen
in command of the French fleet. After defeating Rear- Admiral Hood,
whom Rodney had detached in command of seventeen sail of the line
to intercept him in the straits between St Lucia and Martinique
(April 29), de Grasse reduced Tobago, and then, with his whole fleet of
twenty-eight sail of the line, bore down upon the Chesapeake and
occupied the Bay (August 30), before Hood and Graves were able to
join their forces. The junction efiected, the British commanders were
able to oppose nineteen sail of the line to the twenty-four with which
the French Admiral guarded the mouth of the Bay. The disparity of
strength was, therefore, not so great as to preclude all chance of victory
had the British ships been properly handled. Graves, however, for
some as yet unexplained cause, failed; and an indecisive engagement
left his van so crippled that, upon the arrival of a squadron under
Barras, which raised the French strength to thirty-six sail of the line,
he lost no time in withdrawing to New York to refit ; and, before he
could return to the Bay, Comwallis had capitulated (October 19). Ill
health had meanwhile compelled Rodney's return to England, and in his
absence disaster followed disaster in the West Indies. Bouill^ carried
454 The War in West Indian and East Indian waters. [i778-83
St Eustatius by a, coup de main (November 26), and, while Hood man-
oeuvred brilliantly against de Grasse, reduced St Christopher (February IS,
1782). Nevis and Montserrat also fell into the hands of the French, and
Antigua, Barbados, and even Jamaica, were in imminent peril when
Rodney's advent changed the aspect of affairs. Collecting his entire force
of thirty-six sail of the line off Martinique, he waited until de Grasse
slipped out of Fort Royal Bay (April 8, 1782) with the view of joining
the Spanish squadron off Hayti, and, at once giving chase, came up
with him in the offing between Dominicaand Guadaloupe. De Grasse
commanded thirty-'five sail of the line, and most of his ships were of
larger size and heavier armament than the British ; and it would seem
that he, therefore, at first supposed that he could defeat his pursuers in
detail. At any rate, on April 9 his rear offered battle to Rodney's van,
but with no result ; and, when on the 12th de Grasse resumed the offen-
sive, the engagement became general, and Rodney carried the day by the
then novel manoeuvre pf breaking the enemy's line. Shortly after sunset
de Grasse struck his flag, and surrendered to Hood. In all, eight ships
of the line were taken or destroyed : the rest made good their escape.
The victory was less complete than it might have been, had the pursuit
been pressed with due vigour ; nevertheless, it completely demoralised the
enemy, and practically terminated the war in the West.
In the East the capitulation (October 17, 1778) of PondicheiTy to
General Munro and Commodore Vernon was followed by the expulsion of
the French from Chandernagore, Mahe, and the rest of the settlements
in India, and by the reduction of the Dutch settlements at Negapatam
(November 13, 1781) and Trincomalee (January 11, 1782). The situation
was, however, materially changed by the appearance off the Coromandel
coast of a French squadron of twelve sail of the line under the able and
gallant Suffren, who, after a brush with a numerically superior force
under Commodore Johnstone off Porto Praya, Cape Verde Islands
(April 16, 1781), had outsailed the British commander and frustrated
his designs on the Cape of Good Hope. In the course of 1782,
, Vice- Admiral Hughes, and Suffren fought several desperate actions, off
Sadras (February 17), Providien (April 12), Cuddalqre (July 6) and
Trincomalee, which Suffren had meanwhile reduced (September 3). In
all these battles the advantage rested with the French,; notwithstanding
that after the first there was no great disparity of stresngth ; nor did
reinforcements, which gave Hughes eighteen ships of the line to Suffren's
fifteen in a final engagement off Cuddalore (June 20, 1783) enable hino
to gain a decisive victory over his brilliant adversary.
While thp air was heavy with rumours of imminent French invasion,
two liberal measures of a quiet character were carried through Parlia-
ment. By Sir George Savile's Act (18 Geo. Ill, c 60) such Catholics as
would take the oaths of, allegiance, and, supremacy in a form specially
adapted to negative the supposed pr^tensiong of their Church in matters
1778-80] Reforms and projects of Reform. 456
temporal were relieved from the penal statute (11 and 12 Will. Ill, c. 4)
by which they were debarred from inheriting or otherwise acquiring real
estate within England and Wales and, if officiating priests or school-
masters, were liable to perpetual imprisonment. By a further Act,
Enghsh Protestant Dissenting Ministers were reheved from the subscrip-
tion to the declaration of faith required by the Toleration Act (1 Will,
and Mary, c. 18). Meanwhile, as is narrated in another chapter, Ireland,
suffering the more acutely by the War because of the shackles set upon
her commerce by British monopolism, now at last bestirred herself, and
organised a volunteer force of 40,000 men, while demanding through her
Parliament the abolition of the entire system of vexatious restrictions
imposed on her, and shortened supply to a six months' Bill (November,
1779). Shelburne and Rockingham, though both but recent converts
to her cause, gave it the support at St Stephen's which the gravity of
the crisis demanded. North, who in the previous year had made a
trifling concession, surrendered at discretion, and thus, at one stroke,
Ireland achieved her commercial emancipation.
The movement for curtailing the corrupt influence of the Crown, on
the other hand, made but slow progress. The House of Commons, indeed,
on the motion of Dunning, ably supported by Sir Fletcher Norton,
affirmed the principle of a periodical scrutiny into the Civil List (April,
1780) ; ,but the Government had still strength enough to wreck
Burke's grand scheme for the reform of the civil and certain other estab-
lishments by the abolition of sinecures and other redundant offices, the
consolidation of such offices as overlapped one another, and the due
regulation of the system of payment (May 18). Sir Philip Jennings
Gierke's Contractors' Bill reached the House of Lords, but was thrown
out by the Thurlow-ridden majority, which also negatived motions by
Richmond and Shelburne for the revision of the Civil List, the extra-
ordinary charges of the services, and the entire system of public finance
(December, 1779, and February, 1780).
Parliament, however, was no true index of the public mind. Reform,
economic and parliamentary, was eagerly discussed at county meetings,
in which Yorkshire and Middlesex led the way. Numerous petitions
for reform were presented at St Stephen's, and associations spread' the
agitation throughout the country. Fox and Richmond headed the
movement, the latter declaring for annual Parliaments, manhood suffrage,
and electoral districts. In the midst of this ferment, a singular outbreak
of popular frenzy, originating in a tumultuous demonstration in support
of a petition presented at St Stephen's by Lord George Gordon for the
repeal of the recent Roman Catholic Relief Act, was suft'ered by the
culpable supineness of the Government to spread anarchy and arson
throughout a great part of the metropolis, and was only suppressed by
the military, not without considerable loss of life (June 2-8). These
outrages, nevertheless, strengthened the hands of the Government, whose
456 , Fall of the Administration. [i78i-2
partisans were not slow to attribute them to the machinations of the
Whigs. The Court, after some coquetting with Rockingham, gathered
courage, and, further exhilarated by the tidings of the capture of Charles-
ton, resolved on an appeal to the country. Parliament was accordingly
dissolved (September 1) ; and the verdict of the polls gave the Govern-
ment a fresh, albeit a very brief, lease of life. During the first session of
the new Parliament the Opposition was powerless. The Dutch War,
against which they did not fail to protest, was popular both in Parlia-
ment and in the country ; and a new war loan of ^12,000,000, though
raised on terms so extravagant as seriously to damage North's reputa-
tion, was nevertheless sanctioned. Burke reintroduced his Establishment
Bill, and Clerke his Contractors' Bill, but neither measure was committed,
and a Bill for the disfranchisement of revenue officers shared the same
fate. Lord Sandwich's administration of the navy was attacked and
defended with the usual success.
The session closed (July 18, 1781) without more important result
in the way of domestic legislation than a measure validating marriages
solemnised in good faith in places of worship unauthorised by the
Marriage Act of 1751. In Ireland, under the genial sway of the new
Viceroy, Lord Carlisle, the Separatist cause made rapid progress. Across
the Atlantic, the capitulation of Yorktown (October 19) virtually settled
the question of the independence of the United States.
When Parliament reassembled (November 27), the fate of the Ad-
ministration was already sealed. The old high language was indeed still
heard from the Throne ; but Fox' amendment to the Address censuring
Ministers collectively, and his subsequent arraignment of Sandwich in
particular as primarily responsible for the naval reverses, were defeated
by reduced majorities ; and, on Conway's motion for an Address depre-
cating the continuance of offensive operations in America, the majority fell
to one (February 22, 1782). The motion was thereupon renewed and
carried without a division (February 27). The Reply which the. Address
elicited from the Throne being ambiguous, a further motion denouncing
as enemies to the country all who should contribute to the prolongation
of offensive war in America was also carried without a division (March 4).
All classes were now weary of the War ; and, though a new loan of
i&l 3,500,000 was carried, a vote of censure moved by a typical Tory,
Sir John Rous, was only negatived by a majority of nine (March 15).
On the 20th, North anticipated its renewal by announcing that his
Administration was no more.
1782] The BocMngham Ministry. 467
(3) THE YEARS OF PEACE, AND THE RISE OF THE
YOUNGER PITT.
(1782-93.)
When the last parliamentary struggle of Lord North was over
(March 20, 1782), and the beaten Minister drove away, in his coach,
from the House of Commons, with "the advantage of being in the
secret," Lord Rockingham entered (March 27) into a troubled inherit-
ance. AH the omens were unfavourable. The King was ostentatiously
hostile ; " the fatal hour has come," he wrote ; and he talked of retiring
to Hanover. The Whig party were not yet a compact body. The new
Minister was committed to an adventurous policy. He had always
encouraged the ambitions of the Irish Nationalists ; and Ireland, still
unconciliated, was on the brink of rebellion. He had always opposed
the influence of the Crown; and the King was disposed to make a struggle
for what remained of historic prerogative. Rockingham had always
advocated drastic measures of royal and administrative economy, and
he was now to undertake the ever dangerous experiment of retrenchment.
He had, throughout the rebellion in the colonies, been constant to the
American cause, and the Americans were now in a position to dictate
the dismemberment of the Empire. To carry out a consistent policy
in all these cases was a difficult task. The troubles of forming an
administration began early. A preliminary negotiation, through Lord
Thurlow, begun on March 11, 1782, while North was stiU in office,
ended unsuccessfully on March 18, because Rockingham wished to set
out to the King the conditions of his acceptance of office, while the
King wished him to take office unconditionally, and settle the terms
afterwards. Meantime an ineffectual negotiation, not known at the
time, had been tried by the King with Lords Shelburne and Gower.
Both refused the white elephant of office, and Shelburne, knowing his
own weakness, urged on the King the necessity of sending for Rock-
ingham. The King, after hitherto persistently refusing even to see
Rockingham, whom he disliked, at length conceded the point, and
accepted the unwelcome terms proposed to him ; on March 27 the
new Minister kissed hands. Lord Rockingham was First Lord of the
Treasury; Lord John Cavendish, Chancellor of the Exchequer; Lord
Camden, President of Council ; the Duke of Grafton, Lord Privy Seal ;
Lord Thurlow (as a concession to the King), Lord Chancellor; Lord
Shelburne and Charles Fox, Joint Secretaries of State. Among the
minor appointments was that of Edmund Burke, who was made Pay-
master of the Forces — a well paid office which did not, however, admit
him to the Cabinet. The omission was questioned by many contemporary
critics, and condemned by many subsequent commentators, perhaps nqt
very judiciously, as discreditable to a party which his genius did so
much to adorn.
458 The Irish Parliament. [i782
The demands which Rockingham had made upon the King, first
through Thurlow and again through Shelburne, were chiefly these: the
acknowledgment of American independence; the curtailment of the
patronage and influence of the Crown; the disqualification of contractors
from sitting in the House of Commons ; the exclusion of the numerous
revenue ofiicers from the privilege of voting ; the abolition of sinecure
offices ; and the introduction of a system of rigid economy into all the
departments of the Government. The programme was sufficiently large
and radical ; but it included everything for which the opposition to North
had contended. Every separate item had, however, in the eyes of the
King, an obvious relation to his known wishes and to his suspected
policy. That the King should have been reluctant to submit to the new
rigime was not unnatural. Its advent inflicted on him the chagrin of
a personal defeat. , Dunning, Fox, Burke, Hockingham himself, had, one
and all, made themselves conspicuous as personal opponents of the King ;
nor had they refrained from insulting personal reflexions.
The affairs of Ireland were the first to which the attention of the
Ministry was peremptorily called. Two Acts of ancient date stood in the
way of Irish legislative independence. One was the Irish Act, 10 Henry VII,
cap. 4, commonly called " Poynings' Law." By this Act, no Parliament
could be held in Ireland without the consent of England having been
first sought and obtained, and no legislation passed without the substance
of it being first submitted to the King of England and his Council. This
Act was obviously restrictive of legislative freedom, but the Viceroys had
never enforced it rigorously. Moreover, if the Act limited the powers of
a Parliament which never represented the people, it had some well-under-
stood merits in restraining the Viceroys from acts of selfish tyranny.
The other Act was 6 George I, cap. 5, a declaratory statute affirm-
ing the right of Great Britain to legislate for Ireland, and declaring that
the Irish House of Lords had no right to judge of, affirm, or reverse,
any judgment of the Irish Courts. The repeal of these Acts was the
demand made upon the new Ministry. The Irish Parliament, which had
temporarily adjourned over the Easter recess, met on April 16, by special
summons from the Speaker, ordering every member to be in his place,
" as he tertded the rights of Ireland." All efforts, by Portland in Dublin
and by Fox from Westminster, to effect a postponement or compromise
failed. Grattan, as an amendment to the address, moved his declaration
of rights, in a speech which has become part of the national literature.
The amendment was carried without division, though not without debate.
The demands to be made upon Great Britain were settled, and a short
tidjoumment to May 4, and then to May 27, was arranged, in order
to await the results from Westminster. At Westminster there was
little delay. Fox, on April 8, while protesting against the abandon-
ment of the supremacy of England over Irdand, promised an early and
corhplete measure. On the 9th, he presented a message from the King,
1782] Jealousy between Fooe and Shelburne. 459
recommending the consideration of Irish affairs ; and hereupon proposed
that, as it was impossible to proceed on the little information before the
House, reports should be received from the Executive in Ireland before
further steps were taken. Shelburne, on the other hand, asserted in
the Lords that there was no need for further documents: "he was
sure that every noble lord " was fully acquainted with the circumstances.
He also asserted that the Irish leaders had " blended moderation with
their steadiness" — a fact which was not very apparent. The address to
the King was carried in both Houses, on May 17, The Act of George I
was repealed, the necessary communications being made to the Lord
Lieutenant in Ireland in advance of the royal signature to the repealing
Act. On the reassembling of the Irish Parliament on May 27, the con-
cessions made at Westminster were announced. The sum of .ifi'lOOjOOO
was voted ! for the service of the British navy ; and ^£"50,000 was offered
for the purchase of an estate for Grattan. An address was voted to the
Viceroy; Poynings' Act was, without special mention, repealed by the
Act 21 and 22 George III, cap. 47 (Irish) "to regulate the Manner of
passing Bills"; and Ireland entered on the short period of legislative
independence which was to last till the Union.
Meanwhile, other events were occupying the attention of Ministers in
England. . From the beginning, the new Ministry was but loosely united.
Fox had declared, before the Ministry was fuUy formed, that he perceived
there were two parties in it, one devoted to the King and one to the
nation. Shelburne was, of course, the King'^ man, and Fox the man for
the nation. The jealousy of Fox towards Shelburne was acute, and
he watched his colleague with suspicious eyes. On April 28, he describes
Shelburne as " ridiculously jealous of my encroachment on his depart-
ment." And, again, " he affects the Minister more and more every day,
and is, I believe, perfectly confident that the King intends to make him
so. Provided we can stay in long enough to have given a good stout
blow to the influence of the Crown, I do not think it much signifies how
soon we go out after." Posterity, looking back with impartial eyes on
the situation, and aware that there was Ireland to pacify, Europe and
America to conciliate, and the resources of the kingdom to safeguard,
can hardly agree that to accept office under the King, merely in order to
undermine his prerogative and then leave the country to its fate in other
hands, was an ambition worthy of a statesman. Nor was Shelburne free
from blame. Haying easier access to the King than his colleagues, he made
use of it largely for the purpose of patronage. Dunning was created
a peer without Rockingham's knowledge. Barre was rewarded with a
pension. Fox complained to Grafton that he was constantly thwarted
in the Cabinet; and he was always on the point of resigning. The
measures of economy to which Ministers were committed were with diffi-
culty accomplished. The plan having been submitted by a royal message,
the address of thanks was made the vehicle of reluctant but effusive
460 Financial reforms. — Peace negotiations. [i77^83
compliments to the King ; it was " the best of messages, from the best
of Kings, to the best of people," said. Burke ; but he could not refrain
from pointing out that the measure was one of his own suggestion.
Shelbume, on the other hand, was very specific in declaring that the
message was the personal act of the King, and by no means framed on
the model of that which had been put forward on a previous occasion,
i.e. by Burke. The saving to be effected was only £72,368 per annum —
hardly enough to excite a tempest of popular gratitude. And, as it
was, after all, to be applied to the payment of interest on the arrears
of the King's Civil List (o6'296,000), a confused impression was left that
there had been no saving at all, but only a little financial juggling for
the benefit of the creditors of the Crown. Several parts of the scheme
had to be given up. A number of sinecures remained untouched ; one
of these, the clerkship of the Pells, being, as was alleged by Horace
Walpole, retained in order that Burke might confer it on his son. But
something practical had been done. An Act was also passed. to prevent
revenue officers from voting; and another excluded contractors from
sitting in the House of Commons. The resolution which had affirmed the
disability of John Wilkes to sit in Parliament was expunged from the
Journals. Thus, somewhat disheartened by concessions to Ireland, dis-
appointed at the result of financial reforms, and divided by growing
jealousies, the Ministers found themselves face to face with the imperative
duty of deciding the question of peace or continued war, with France,
Spain, Holland, and America.
It can hardly be said that they were negligent in negotiation.
Fox, as Foreign Minister, had taken the subject seriously to heart. From
the first, he set himself to secure the aid of the Empress Catharine II
of Russia in negotiating peace with Holland, against which England had
been carrying on war since 1780 — when Holland, in violation of existing
treaties, had joined the "Armed Neutrality," proceeding (in 1781) to re-
cognise the independence of the American Colonies. His correspondence
with Sir James Harris at St Petersburg shows how earnestly he sought to
secure Russian cooperation : he even went the length of offering to bribe
the officers of the imperial Court — a proposal discountenanced by Harris.
The death of Rockingham and Fox' subsequent resignation prevented the
negotiation from being carried to an issue ; and, though the mediatorship
of Russia and Prussia was more or less recognised in the conclusion of
the Peace of 1783, it never was an important factor in the negotiations.
Contemporaneously with the Russian negotiations, steps had been taken to
negotiate with Franklin in Paris. From 1779, propositions had at various
times been entertained, at Philadelphia and in London, tending to a
peace, but nothing had come of them. A resolution in favour of peace
had been carried in the House of Commons in 1781, and North had taken
some steps in that direction. In 1782 an Act was passed to enable the
King to conclude a peace or truce. On April 6, Shelbume sent to Franklin
1782] Death of Rockingham. Ministerial changes. 461
Richard Oswald, as a man of "pacifical" disposition, "fully apprised
of Lord Shelburne's mind." On April 8, Franklin reported to Shelbume
his interview with Oswald and Vergennes, with the explanation that the
object was for a "general peace." In this interview with Oswald,
Franklin committed to his care a paper in which a proposal was made
for the cession of Canada. On this point much discussion — not yet
fully ended — has arisen. Oswald always asserted that Shelbilme, of whose
mind he was "fully apprised," entertained the proposition. On the other
hand, it is obvious from the Diplomatic Correspondence of tJw Revolution
(the sole first-hand authority for the proceedings from day to day) that
Shelbume did not formally adopt the suggestion; that he replied un-
favourably; and that he did not think it worth while to place it before
his colleagues for consideration. North had initiated the proposal before
his retirement by means of a private agent, in March, 1782, as appears
from a letter of Rayneval to Franklin, dated April 13. The offer
was known to Vergennes. Franklin naturally adopted the idea at the
opening of the new negotiations. His first plan was, that by the sale
of lands in Canada a fund could be raised to compensate the Loyalists,
to whose claim Vergennes was favourably inclined. This plan Franklin
soon abandoned ; and he was afterwards hostile, throughout the negotia-
tions, to aU the Loyalist claims. On May 9, Thomas Grenville was
sent to Paris by Fox, in whose new department of Foreign Affairs the
negotiations for a general peace naturally lay. Grenville was always
overmatched in negotiation by Franklin and Vergennes. His chief work
was, in effect, to stimulate the jealousy of Fox against Shelbume and
Oswald. Up to a certain point Vergennes and Franklin worked har-
moniously. But a distrust had been growing in the mind of Adams and
of Jay towards France. The French Minister was favourable to the
claims of the Loyalists ; and he was not eager to press the claims of
the Americans to the fisheries and to the hinterland of colonial territory.
According to Jay, the French Minister " did not play fair." Before the
negotiations had proceeded to the point of an agreement as to terms,
Lord Rockingham died, on July Ij 1782, and the whole chain of
negotiation was temporarily broken.
The whole system of government in England was, in fact, broken.
The party which had made it a principle to dictate to the Crown the
choice of Ministers was now unable to choose a Minister. " The Crown,"
said Horace Walpole, "devolved upon the King of England on the
death of Lord Rockingham." Fox was naturally the nominee of his
friends. The Duke of Richmond was ambitious, but was too deeply
pledged to drastic measures of Reform. Fox pressed on the King the
nomination of the Duke of Portland. The King, however, had made up
his mind. There was a momentary chance that Lord North might be
recalled ; but Pitt refused to serve vmder him. Shelbume was sent for.
Fox, who had long been restive and resentful, passionately refused to
CH. XUI.
462 Provisional Peace with the American Colonies. [i782-3
serve with Shelbume. He resigned, thinking that he would be followed
by the whole Rockingham connexion. He was followed only liy the
Duke of Portland, Lord John Gavendishj Burke, and Sheridan. The
Duke of Richmond remained at the Ordnance, and Viscount Keppel
continued head of the Admiralty. Shelburne proceeded to fill up the
vacant places. Lord Grantham iand Thomas Townshend became
Secretaries of State; Pitt became Chancellor of the Exchequer at
twenty-three; and Lord Temple went to Ireland. Lord Camden remained
President of Council, and Thurlow continued to be Chamicellor. The
Cabinet now consisted of seven Chathamite Whigs, two Rockingham
Whigs, and two members, Grantham and Thurlow, who were not strictly
of any party. The triumph of Shelburne seemed to be complete.
In the months which elapsed between July 11,1782, when Shelbume
became head of the Government, and December 5, when Parliament met,
much was done. The peace negotiations were pushed to completion.
The situation had changed somewhat in favour of Great Britain. On
April 12, Admiral Rodney^ who had been commissioned by North, had
defeated the fleet of France in the West Indies. The Rockingham
Administration had sent an order for his withdrawal ; but the news of
his victory reached England a day too late to stop the order. Thus,
the Ministry were compelled to glorify and reward the man they had
dismissed, and to take what credit they could for the victory they had
not expected. If the state of aifairs in America had been encouraging,
Rodney's victory might, have prolonged the contest. But all parties were
weary of the war and desirous of peace. France was dismayed at the
defeat of de Grasse, and reluctant to boncede further financial aid to
the Colonists. Spain was disheartened by the failure before Gibraltar.
Holland was under pressure from Russia. The American leaders were in
despair at the discontent of the people, the mutinous spirit of the army,
and the lack of all material resources for carrying on the conflict. The
American negotiators at Paris had come to the conclusion to make a
separate peace. Franklin held out long against this conclusion ; but
an intercepted letter from Marbois, the French chairgk d'affaires in
America (March 13, 1782), advising Vergennes unfavourably to the
American claims to the fisheries and the territory of the valley of the
Mississippi and the Ohio, which was put before' Franklin, precipitated
an agreement among the negotiators. On November 30 provisional
articles of peace between the Colonies and Great Britain were signed.
On December 15 Vergehnes wrote to Franklin a dignified protest against
the signing of the articles without consultation with France, arid contrary
to the instructions from Congress. Franklin wrote a reply, apologising
for the " indiscretion," but hoping that Vergennes would not permit the
English Ministry to suppose they had divided America from France.
On February 14, 1783, a cessation of arms was proclaimed by King
George, and, on the 20th, a like proclamation was made by Congress.
1782-3] Resignation of Shelburne. 463
On February 24, Shelburne resigned oiEce, and the negotiations were
again suspended.
The events which led to the resignation of Shelburne may be briefly
related. Coming into office with a following which, pitted against the
party of Fox and the party of North, left him in a minority, his
continuance in office was from the first doubtful. Prom July to
December he had had a free hand in the negotiations. When Parlia-
ment met on December 6, 1782, the elements of opposition^ which had
used the recess for the purpose of agitation and intrigue, began to unite.
The King's Speech contained the announcement of the provisional peace,
but referred to "so great a dismemberment of the Empire." On this
point great differences of opinion were expressed by Ministers. Shelburne,
in the Lordsi declared that: the grant of American independence was
revocable, should there be no final general peace. Pitt, in the Commons,
asserted (December 11) that the recognition could not be revoked in
any case; and General Conway supported him. But the King inters
preted his speech in the sense adopted by Shelburne; and the
Opposition naturally made much of this conflict of statements. Pitt
was, indeed, obliged to confess that, he was mistaken. Ministers were,
however, sustained by an overwhelming majority. On January 27, 1783,
the preliminary articles of peace with France, Spain and America were
tabled. The amendments moved by the Opposition were vehemently
debated. Pitt's speech was not very successful, and in the course of it
he made an attack on Sheridan's theatrical associations, Avhich produced
the famous retort about the "Angry Bpy." The amendments were
carried by 224 to 208, Ministers being left in a minority. In the course
of the debate the coalition between Fox and North, which had been
rumoured, became apparent. On Februaiy 21, Lord John Cavendish
moved resolutions of censxu^e on the Peace. Fox in his speech admitted
the necessity of a coalition ; but Pitt, with his vigour renewed, attacked
it with immense spirit and " in the name of the public safety forbade
the banns." The amendments were again carried by 224 to 208 ; and
on the 24th Shelburne resigned. Events had dictated the resignation,
apart from the vote of the House. Keppel had resigned; Richmond
had refused to attend Council; Grafton had informed the King of
his intention to retire ; Camden had advised Shelburne to give up the
struggle ; and Temple was dissatisfied in Ireland. North and Fox had
put aside personal ambitions,, and agreed upon the Duke of Portland
as their leader. The Duke had indeed been negotiating beforehand and
had approached Richmond and Temple ; but both refused. The King
did not yield without a struggle, and importuned Shelburne, who
vainly put forward Pitt. After a day or two of hesitation, during
which he is said to have attended for a few hours at the Treasury and
prepared a list of Ministers, Pitt finally abandoned the dangerous task.
An appeal was made to North; but he was too deeply committed to Fox;
464 Peace concluded with America and the Allies. [1V82-3
Lord Gower, too, was tried unsuccessfully. Some differences of opinion
now arose between Fox and North as to the distribution of offices;
but on April 1 the Ministry was completed. The Government consisted
of the Duke of Portland, First Lord of the Treasury; Lord Northj Home
Secretary; Fox, Foreign Secretary; Lord John Cavendish, Chancellor
of the Exchequer ; Viscount Keppel, Admiralty ; Viscount Townshend,
Ordnance; Lord Stormont, President of Council ; the Earl of Carlisle,
Privy Seal; the Chancellorship was presently put into commission, as
Thurlow was not acceptable. Burke returned to his Paymastership,
somewhat dejected; Sheridan was made Treasurer of the Navy; Lord
Northington went to Ireland, with William Wyndham as Secretai7.
The business of the session was but little interrupted. An American
Intercourse Bill was introduced, but not then pressed; but a Bill to
remove restrictions on American trade was carried. An enquiry into
the sufferings of the Loyalists was ordered, and certain Loyalist troops
were placed on half-pay. The session closed on July 16, 1783. The
new and memorable session opened on November 11. The King's
Speech announced that definitive Treaties of Peace had been signed on
September 2 and 3 with America and all the AUies, except Holland, with
which Power preliminaries only had been settled. There was no debate.
The terms had been discussed in detail during the various debates, from
the accession of Shelburne in July, 1782, to the close on February 24,
1783. The negotiation of treaties of peace had not been favourable to
the Ministry of 1713, or to the Ministry of 1763 ; and neither the
Ministry of Shelburne, nor the Coalition, was to prove more fortunate.
The Treaties now accepted were much the same as those all but concluded
by Shelburne; though Fox in his speech of November 11, 1783, made
the most of such changes as he had been able to secure in the definitive
treaty with France. The main articles of the Treaties remained unaltered.
France obtained certain rights of fishing and drying fish on the uninhabited
coast of Newfoundland, and the islands of St Pierre and Miquelon were
ceded to her. She also obtained St Lucia and Tobago; but Great
Britain retained Dominica, Grenada, St Vincent, St Christopher, Nevis,
and Montserrat. The French gained Senegal and Goree in Africa ; the
English retained Fort James and the river Gambia. The French regained
their establishments in Orissa and Bengal, Pondicherry and Karikal, Mahe
and Surat, with some trade advantages. The provisions of the Treaty of
Utrecht (1713) were abrogated as to the demolition of Dunkirk. Spain
was forced to abandon all hope of Gibraltar, but obtained Minorca. She
also retained West, and Great Britain ceded East, Florida ; while Spain
conceded the right to cut logwood in the Bay of Honduras, and gave up
Providence and the Bahamas. The terms with the United States were
open to some of the objections which they called forth. The boundaries
of the country were enlarged unduly; the fisheries concessions were too
liberal ; the provisions for the collection of debts due before the Peace
1766-84] Parliamentary Reform. — Indian .affairs. 465
were too easily eyaded; and the conditions as to the Loyalists were (so far
as the Americans were concerned) insincere and inoperative. The con-
cessions to Prance in the Newfoundland Fisheries, abrogated by the War
of 1812, but renewed at Ghent in 1814 in a curtailed form,, became a
source of infinite trouble and correspondence. But, as it was impossible
to foresee the future, and as peace was necessary to all parties, special
censure can hardly be passed on the negotiations of men who were
politicians and not prophets. To all the parties to the negotiations the
Treaties were welcome — to the American Colonies they were a godsend.
The latest authoritative writer on the subject, Van Tyne, sums up the
situation thus : " Disorganisation was seen everywhere — in politics, in
finance, in the army. Peace came like a stroke of good fortune rather
than a prize that was won. Congress (January 14, 1784) could hardly
assemble a quorum to ratify the Treaty."
Other subjects were simultaneously coming to the front. The question
of Reform was not a new one. In 1766, 1770 and 1771 Chatham had
given it his eloquent and prophetic patronage. Alderman Sawbrid,ge had
been making annual propositions in its favour since 1771. In 1776, Wilkes
had moved for leave for a Bill proposing extensive reforms in representa-
tion. In 1780, the Duke of Richmond had presented a measure for annual
parliaments, universal suffragie and equal electoral districts. The Gordon
riots had temporarily discredited all such efforts; and, at the close of the
session of 1780, the King's Speech warned the people against "the hazard
of innovation." On May 7, 1782, Pitt moved for a Committee. His
proposal was rejected by only 161 to 141. A year later (May 7, 1783)
he brought forward a definite scheme which caused a division amoilgst
Ministers. Fox supported it; North opposed; Burke was so badly
received that he declined to proceed ; Dundas, who had opposed Pitt's
first measure, supported his second; but the proposal was rejected. Pitt's
popularity was, however, greatly increased by his action in this matter.
Meanwhile, under the preceding two Administrations as well as in that
under the new Coalition, the affairs of India, of which an account is given
in another chapter, loomed large through the mists of political agitation
at home. Since 1773 Warren Hastings was Governor-General, and in 1780
the East India Company's Charter was to expire after three years' notice.
In 1781 there were discussions between the Directors and Lord North as to
terms of renewal. In the same year, complaints and petitions had reached
London from India concerning the conduct of Hastings, whose many
enemies now began to be active. In 1781 an Act was passed (21 Geo. Ill,
cap. Q5) extending the privileges of the Company till three years' notice
after 1791, regulating the dividends, and giving the Government larger
powers over the political affairs of the Company. On April 9, 1781,
North moved the House into committee to consider the affairs of
India. On April 30, a secret Committee was named to enquire into the
war in the Camatic. Buike and Fox wished the Committee to be public;
O. M. H. VI. CH. XIII. 30
466 Failure of Fox' India Bill. [i782-3
but secrecy was maintained. On December 4 the Secret Committee was
empowered to add the Maratha War to the scope of their enquiry. In
March, 1782, North was out of office, and the Rockingham Adminis-
tration was in. On April 15 Dundas, Chairman of the Secret Committee,
moved a series of resolutions condemning the mode in which the two
wars had been conducted. On April 24 a resolution condemiiiiig
Hastings for his relations with Chief Justice Impey was passed; and
on May 3 an address for the recall of Impey was voted. On May 30
Dundas carried a motion for the recall of Hastings, but on July 1, 1782,
Rockingham died ; Shelburne succeeded ; and the Court of Proprietors,
taking advantage of the change of Ministers, assumed authority to
rescind the order for the recall of Hastings, which, in obedience to the
House of Commons, the Directors had made.
On April 1, 1783, the Coalition was in office, and the parliamentary
session opened on November 11 following. Pitt and the Opposition
pressed for Reform, especially in India. Fox' reply was his famous
India Bill, said, on incomplete and unsatisfactory authority, to have been
the composition of Burke. Its first reading took place on November 18,
when, contrary to modem custom, it was debated. A young speaker,
John Scott (who, as Lord Eldon, was afterwards to become so familiar
a figure in Engli^ public life) indic£|,ted at the outset the point which was
in the minds of all, and against which North had forewarned Fox, viz.
the too obvious exclusion of the powers of the Crown in the appointments
under the Bill — the Commissioners being in the first instance nominated
en fiZoc-by.the House, without reference to the Crown, for a period fixed
and certain, though after that period the Crown might appoint. Fox
observed the point at once, and, while complimenting Scott, not quite
fairly accused him of stating his opinion with " a good deal of positive-
ness." Pitt immediately enlarged the breach made by Scott, and said
that "the accession of power which it must certainly bring to the
Ministers of the day was not the least considerable " of the objections to
the Bill. On the lines thus laid down the opposition was conducted^
Fox' measure consisted of two Bills : one referring to the administrative
^ The use of the terms "Crown" and "Ministers" all through the debates
requires some discrimination. It illustrates a then existing difference in political
theorjr. Fox' Bill presented to the Crown a list of party uominatioua, made first
io the House, and not submitted in the Closet. This was a limitation of the Crown's
«r«i'Ogativ,e, on well understood Whig lines. The appointments were for four years
^^rtain. 'This gave the appointing Ministers, through the persons appointed by
them, an enormous and increasing patronage, 6ven if they went out of office. Many
Opposition speakers referred to the increase of the power of "the Crown" when
they really meant the power of the Ministers. Pitt always spoke against "the
Ministers." Under Pitt's Bill the Crown had no more real power than under Fox',
since Ministers would naturally prepare for the Crown the lists of nominees. The
difference was in great measure a matter of procedure, qualified by the personal
feeling of the King, who was, no doubt, willing to accept as constitutional advice
from Pitt what he resented as Whig dictation from Fox.
1783] New Administration formed by Pitt. 467
body in England, the other to the administrative powers in India.
Petitions against the Bills were presented by the Company, and by the
Lord Mayor and Aldermen of London ; and counsel were heard at the bar
of the House. On December 1 Fox moved the House into committee
on the Bill, and Burke delivered the first of his memorable speeches
on India; it occupies seventy-four columns of the Parliamentary History.
At half-past four on the morning of December 2 the motion to go into
committee was carried by 217 to 103. The third reading was carried by
as large a vote. The names of the seven Commissioners had now been
inserted, and Fox, accompanied by a triumphant procession, carried the
Bills to the Lords. Here the Bills were debated on December 9. The
Opposition was led by Thurlow and Temple ; the Bills were supported
by Loughborough and Carlisle. In the course of the debate a newspaper
article was read by the Duke of Richmond stating that Temple had had
an audience of the King, who had given him to understand that the
Bills were "in the highest degree disagreeable to his Majesty." Temple
admitted that he had tendered his advice to his Majesty, but would say
no more than that it had been unfriendly to the Bills. The fate of the
measure was sealed. Temple had in fact been authorised by the King
to declare to his friends that the measure was objectionable to him, and
that he should count as enemies those who voted for it. On December 17
the commitment of the Bill was rejected by a majority of nineteen. The
Prince of Wales, who had voted for the measure on the first vote, was
absent on the occasion of the final division.
The Ministers did not immediately resign as was generally expected.
The King had been waiting for his opportunity to dismiss them. Writing
to Fox on September S concerning the signature of the definitive
Treaties, he had used this curious expression : " In States as in men,
where dislike has once arose I never expect to see cordiality." He was
now to prove his own philosophy. Late at night on the 18th, the King
sent to Fox and North for their seals, which were handed to Temple, who
next day wrote letters of dismissal to the other Ministers. On the 19th
Pitt kissed hands, and proceeded to form an Administration. He had
some initial difficulties. Camden refused ; Grafton refused; Lord Mahon
refused. Gower, who had contemplated total retirement, came to Pitt's
rescue and offered to serve. Temple acted strangely. He had plotted
the overthrow of Ministers ; had advised the King how to proceed ; had
carried the King's message to the Lords ; had received the seals of the
dismissed Ministers; and had accepted the office of Secretary of State
on December 19. On the 21st he resigned. On the vexed question as
to the reason for this step. Lord Stanhope comes to the conclusion that
Temple had asked for, or had expected, a dukedom, and, being refused,
withdrew from the side of Pitt and the King. He never again fiUed
any public position. In the new Administration Shelburne was not
invited to take any part. He accepted a marquisate, with the promise
CH. xni. 80—2
468 Pitt's first India Bill. [i784
of a dukedom if the King changed his policy of retaining that rank for
members of the royal family. The events of the next few years, which
gradually drove Pitt into a leadership of Toryism, equally impelled
Shelbume (Marquis of Lansdowne) into a more intimate connexion with
the Whigs and a general agreement with Fox and the Opposition. In
5pite of all the refusals, Pitt's Ministry was rapidly formed. He was
himself First Lord of the Treasury and Chancellor of the Exchequer;
Earl Gower, President' of Council ; the Duke of Rutland, Privy Seal ;
Lord Sydney — after Temple's resignation — and the Marquis of Car-
marthen, Secretaries of State ; Lord Thiirlow, Lord Chancellor ; Viscoxmt
Jlowe became First Lord of the Admiralty; the Duke of Richmond,
]^aster-General of the Ordnance ; Dundas, Treasurer of the Navy. Of
the seven Cabinet Ministers, only Pitt was in the House of Commons,
where Dundas was his chief support. Rutland subsequently went to
Ireland, and was succeeded by Gower, as Lord Privy Seal. When Pitt's
writ was jnoved for, the motion was received with derision. The
Opposition, counting on an easy and' early victory, proceeded to take
matters into their own hands. They voted it a high crime and misr
demeanour to report the opinion, of the King on any public measure —
though North was forced to confess that he had never felt any of the
royal influence so much condemned by his present allies. . They addressed
the Crown against a dissolution. They refused payment of any money
not already voted, postponed the Mutiny Bill, and carried a motion of
want of confidence.
On January 14, 1784, Pitt moved for leave to bring in his India
Bill, and leave was granted ; on the 23rd, the second reading was taken.
The Bill, which is more fully described in a later chapter, differed
materially from that of Fox. The royal prerogative in the appointments
to the Board of Control was maintainedi The Board was to go out
of office with Ministers, not, as in Fox' Bill, to be continued for four
years without reference to any .change of Ministers. It was to have no
patronage ; and the Company was left in control of administration and
trade in India. On the second reading it was thrown out, but only
by the small majority of eight. Fox, at once, moved for leave to bring in
another Bill, but demanded to know if the discussion was to be inter-
rupted by dissolution. Pitt refused to reply. From this date (January 23,
1784) the contest against his Ministry was carried on with vehemence,
both in the House and in the country. In the House, the result was
remarkable. At first, the Opposition majorities were large; but the
House gradually grew weary of the contest ; the echoes of hostile public
opinion became formidable; and the majorities diminished from fifty-four
to forty-seven, to thirty-nine, to twelv^, to seven, and on March 8 to one.
This was the last struggle of the Coalition in Opposition. In February
a negotiation had been set on foot for a union of the friends of Pitt and
Fox in one Cabinet. Both the leaders professed a willingness to join on
1781-4] New ParUament. — Indian affairs. 469
"equal" terms; but what was meant by "equality" was a point that could
not be settled, and the negotiation failed. On March 24 Parliament
was prorogued ; and on the 25th it was dissolved. The Great Seal was
stolen from the Lord Chancellor's house by some over-zealous enthusiast;
but a new one was speedily procured, for the purpose of the dissolution.
The result was now a foregone conclusion. The King's active aid, Pitt's
popularity, the India Bill of Pitt, the mistakes of the Opposition, and
their actual defeat in the Commons — all contributed to a great Ministerial
victory. Over a hundred and sixty members lost their seats, the greater
pdrt belonging to the Opposition. The first divisions in the new House
showed majorities of from 147 to 168 for Pitt.
While three Administrations had been discussing the affairs of India,
that country Had been the scene of disquieting events. Haidar Ali
had, indeed, been defeated by Sir Eyre Coote at Porto Novo (July 1,
1781), and was now (December, 1782) dead ; but he had been succeeded
by his ambitious son, Tipu Sultan, who, supported by a French force,
was pressing on the divided forces of the English. At sea, affairs
had gone badly for England, as indeed they had from 1746. Admiral
Hughes and Admiral Suffren had, during 1782, encountered each other
in force on several occasions, on February 16 and 17, on April 12, and
on July 4, with indecisive results. The fort of Trincomalee was taken
by the French on August 31. On September 3, 1782, and on June 30,
1783, naval engagements resulted unsatisfactorily for the British side.
Operations on land were not more encouraging.- The British under
General Meadows had indeed caiptured Bednore with a large treasure ;
but the army was dispersed in detachments. On April 9 Tipu appeared
before Bednore and, after a heroic resistance, the English army was
forced to suiTender. When this bad news arrived, during the discussion
of Fox' India Bill, a mistaken expectation w£is entertained that it would
promote the speedy passing of the Bill. The Treaties of Peace of 1783
brought about the retirement of the French from the service of Tipu.
Peace was finally made with him on March 11, 1784, on the basis of a
restoration of conquests.
Pitt's new Parliament met on May 18, 1784. The Opposition pro-
tested at great length a;gainst the dissolution which had destroyed them.
The Westminster election case was raised by Fox, who had been a
successful candidate ; but in whose favour the sheriff refused to make a
return, on the ground that a scrutiny had been demanded. The case
was heard at bar, and the sheriff was ordered to proceed promptly with
the scrutiny. The legislation of the session was largely fiscal. The
budget, which jwas passed, included many new taxes. The franking
privilege was amended; a Bill for the suppression of smuggling was
passed; and provision was ma^e for the arrears of the Civil List
(i&60,000). An Act was passed for the repieal of the Act con-
fiscating estates in Scotland. The East India Company was granted
470 Pitfs second India Bill carried. — Ireland. [x78i-5
an Act for its temporary relief. Hereupon, the gieat measure of the
session, Pjtt's India Bill (24 Geo. Ill, cap. 25), was introduced.
Following the lines laid down in his Bill of January 14, it provided for
a Board of Control, consisting of a Secretary of State, the Chancellor
of the Exchequer and three Privy Councillors, all to be nominated by
the Crown. The Commander Jn-chief was to be nominated by the
Crown. Commercial affairs were to be left in the hands of the Com-
pany, which was also to nominate all the chief officials in India, under
the veto of the Crown. A special judicial tribunal was created, by
ballot of the Lords and the Commons, for the trial of offences under the
Act. The process was complicated. In each session twenty-six or more
Peers, and forty or more Commoners were chosen by ballot in each House.
On a case arising for trial, three Judges were appointed, and before
these the names of the Peers and Commoners were placed in a box and
drawn out singly. When, after the power of challenge had been liberally
exercised, four Peers and six Commoners had been allowed, then the
trial was to proceed. The Bill was moved for on July 6 ; was read a
first time on July 9; and the House went into committee after the
second reading on July 16. It was finally carried in the Commons on
July 28, and in the Lords on August 9. Fox, throughout the session,
continued to refer to the superior merits of his own Bill ; and Pitt not
less constantly retorted as to the assault made on the rights of the Crown.
One of his earliest efforts, in accordance with his general policy of
fiscal legislation, was to bring forward a measure of commercial freedom
with Ireland. His propositions, eleven in number, adopted during the
recess by a Commission appointed by him, were at first carried in Ireland.
When, after a long debate at Westminster, and the increase of the
number of the resolutions to twenty in order to satisfy English jealousies,
they were again considered in Ireland, they were carried by so small
a majority that the Irish Government thought it best to withdraw
them. A great opportunity for enlarged free trade was thus abandoned.
The Westminster scrutiny occupied the House of Commons during part
of two sessions. Pitt's persistence in continuing the scrutiny was not
sustained by the House. An Act was passed which limited polling to
fifteen days, and provision was made for an early return by the sheriffs.
On the whole, the session of 1785 was unfavourable to Ministers.
In the conflict of European opinion during the years 1781 to 1785,
which is discussed at length elsewhere, and which Sir James Harris, who
was sent to the Hague, reported (December 6, 1784) to be " the most
critical since the outbreak of the Thirty Years" War," England remained
neutral. It had been provoked by the attempt of the Emperor Joseph II
to abrogate the Barrier Treaty of 1715, the conditions of which were
guaranteed by Great Britain, and to obtain the free navigation of the
Scheldt. In the Treaty of November 8, 1785, by which war was averted,
though the Barrier Treaty was in effect broken, England took no part.
ivse-Ds] Trial of Warren Hastings.-The Prince of Wales. 471
Parliament met in 1786 on January 4. One important event was
Pitt's measure for the gradual reduction of the public debt by means
of a sinking fund. It was brought forward on March 29, and was
passed with little debate, though Sheridan moved resolutions which he
did not press to a vote. The scheme had an encouraging, though
fallacious, appearance. It stood the test of much financial criticism,
however, and continued in favour till 1828, when, after an elaborate
report from a Committee, it was abolished. Other measures were adopted
in 1866 and 1875 which remain operative still. Article 18 of the Treaty
of. 1783 with France having provided for a Treaty of Commerce, Eden
was commissioned by Pitt to negotiate ; and a Treaty was signed on
September 26, 1786. It provided for a large measure of Free Trade
between France and her dependencies, and Great Britain and her colonies.
A Treaty was also arranged with Spain by which British settlers were to
abandon Spanish territory in South America, and the liberty of cutting
logwood in the Bay of Honduras was enlarged. The great event of
the session was the beginning of the series of charges against Hastings,
which ended in his impeachment. On February 7 Burke brought up the
resolutions of May 30, 1782, for the recall of Hastings, and demanded
the correspondence of the Governor-General with the Directors. The
motion was carried. On the 20th, when the Benares charge was urged,
Pitt significantly declared his impartiality; Hastings demanded a hearing
at the bar, and was heard on May 1, when he made a long and laboured
defence. On June 13, this charge was formulated, when Pitt, to the
surprise of Hastings and the House, conceded that the fine of ^^500,000
imposed on Chait Singh by Hastings was an extortion. This practically
settled the question of the impeachment, though it was not formally
resolved till the following session. When Parliament met in 1787,
Sheridan brought forward the charge against Hastings relating to the
Princesses of Oudh, in a speech made memorable by the praise bestowed
on its eloquence alike by Fox and Pitt. The charge was duly reported,
and, a special committee of managers having been appointed to conduct
an impeachment before the Lords, Hastings was taken into custody, but
released on bail. And thus was begun that trial which figures so largely
in the history and literature of England. It lasted till 1795, and en,ded
in the acquittal of the accused on every charge, leaving him triumphant
and ruined. His fellow in the accusations. Sir Elijah Impey, was more
fortunate. In December, 1787, charges were made against him relating
to the affair of Nuncomar. He made a successful defence, and the
charge was abandoned.
In 1787, another question which caused more than ordinary debate
at the time and which has been much discussed since, was brought
before the House of Comnions. The Prince of Wales, who had become
an active supporter of the Opposition and was especially the ally of
Fox' personal party, had exceeded his liberal income and was deeply in
472 The Prince's marriage. — The Slave Trade. [i63i-i788
debt. An appeal to Parliament for aid was his only hope. The King
refused any assistance of his own, and Pitt was unwilling to proceed
without the command of the King ; " he had," he said, " no instructions
upon the subject;" The Prince's friends were divided in opinion, and
some retired temporarily from attendance in Parliament. Alderman
Newnham brought the subject forward on April 20, 1787. In the course
of the debate a member alluded in a vague but significant way to the
current rumour of the Prince's marriage to Mrs Fitzherbert. On
April 30 Fox made a specific and formal denial of the marriage, alleging
the direct authority of the Prince for this statement. In spite of -a
subsequent vague explanation by Sheridan, intended to shield the lady,
the denial was accepted, and a generous provision was made for the Prince.
The bona fides of Fox' statement has been the subject of dispute. It
was based on a letter written by the Prince to him on December 11, 1785.
Ten da,ys after that date, the Prince was, however, duly married by a
Church clergyman in the presence of witnesses. All London society
was possessed of a secret which the principal parties took little care
to keep; and Fox must have been familiar with all the gossip of the time.
Yet in 1787, after the lapse of sixteen months, he used the Prince's
letter of 1785 as his authority for a denial of the marriage. Lord
Holland contends that Fox was deceived, and his friends alleged that
he did not speak to the Prince for a year; but it is certain that he
corresponded with him. Meanwhile, the Prince had "confessed to Grey
that he was married; and Fox, immediately after his denial, was in-
formed of the marriage by Harris, who was in the house when the event
took place, though not one of the actual witnesses. The Prince's letter
of 1785 was a transparent prevarication, and can hardly have imposed
on Fbx, who for some time after his denial in 1787 absented himself from
the House.
In 1788, the question of the Slave Trade, which had long been
agitated in England, and as to which a Committee of the Privy Council
had recently collected much information, was brought forward by
William Wilberforce ; but, owing to his illness, it fell to Pitt to introduce
the subject in the House of Commons. The trade in slaves had been
legalised by charters in 1631, 1633 and 1672; by Act of Parliament in
1698; by treaty in 1713, 1725 and 1748. In 1772 Lord Mansfield in
a celebrated case declared it illegal in England. A humane agitation
was started by Granville Sharp and continued by Clarkson, Zachary
Macaulay and Wilberforce. And finally Pitt, on the absence of
Wilberforce, through illness, took charge of the business in the House,
though he reserved his own opinion till the next session.
On May 9, he moved a resolution which had the strong support
of Fox. It was that the House would take the question into con-
sideration in the following session. Fox, on this occasion, declared for
total abolition. The resolution was agreed to, and at a later date a
1788] llie Regency Bill. 473
Bill was introduced and passed. It was amended in the Lords ; and the
amendments not being accepted in the Commons, a Compromise Bill
(28 Geo. Ill, cap. 54), prepared by Sir William Dolben, was passed;
This compromise bill, for the regulation of the trade on more humane
conditions, was made necessary by the fact that the Lords' amendments
had made the original bill a Money Bill, which could not originate in
the Lords. In this year a Committee of the House was, with Fox'
support, also appointed (June 6) to enquire into the losses of the
American Loyalists. The promises of the American negotiators in 1783
had not been fulfilled ; the Loyalists had been driven from their homes
and harshly persecuted; and Parliament was already pledged in their
favour. Commissioners had been appointed in 1783 to investigate their
claims, and a series of reports presented. Parliament now finally disposed
of the business. In 1788, the Commissioners reported that they had
examined in all sixteen hundred and eighty claims, and had allowed
■£"1,887,548 for payment. Pitt's proposals were made with much care as
to details. The amount allowed in liquidation of the entire class of
claims was ,£3,033,091, of which ,£2,096,326 had already been paid.
There remained only =£"936,765, which was paid. A loyal address was
presented to the King at the conclusion of the payments, signed by the
representatives of the Loyalists of all the old Colonies expressing their
grateful thanks for his " most gracious and effectual recommendations of
their claims to the just and generous consideration of Parliament."
The most importabt question that had hitherto occupied the
attention of Parliament was now suddenly sprung upon public notice.
The health of the King (December, 1788) became curiously disturbed'.
On October 20, at the levee, he gave obvious signs of derangement.
Parliament having met on November 20, the Lords, after a short
adjournment, appointed a Committee to examine the King's' physicians,
and another to search for precedents. The Commons on December 4
received the report of the physicians, which was, in substance, that
his Majesty was seriously incapacitated, but that there was great proba-
bility of his recovery. A Committee of the Privy Council, of both parties
(54 in all, of whom 24 were of the Opposition), had examined the
physicians on the day before their report was considered in the Commons.
The doctors now began to differ politically as well as professionally, thus
adding to the difficulties of the situation. Fox, who had been abroad,
now hurriedly returned. He at once put forward the right of the Prince
of Wales to assume the Regency without restrictions. This gave the
key-note to the debates which followed, and to the agitation which
arose in the country. Pitt promptly proceeded to " unwhig the gentle-
man" by challenging the constitutionality of Fox' doctrine as to the
Prince's right to the Regency without the consent of the two Houses.
It was, he said, a revival of the doctrine of Divine Right, which a Whig
leader should be the last to put forward. The debates in both Houses
474 The Regency Bill passed. — Irish affairs. [i 787-9
showed curious developments of doctrine. In the Lords, Thurlow made
his celebrated speech in which he said: " When I forget my King, may
my God forget me " — though it was well known that he was privately
pledged to advance the Prince's cause. Fox went so far as to hint
that the Prince had the right to enforce his claim, and was refraining
only out of respect for the two Houses; while Pitt advocated with
vigour the theory of the right of the two Houses to settle the Regency
on such terms as they were pleased to dictate. It was now a struggle
for office between the Ministers and the Opposition. The known
alliance between the Prince and the Opposition made it certain that
as Regent he would call them to power. This was so well understood
that the Duke of Portland had prepared a list of Ministers. On
January 19, 1789, Pitt gave notice of resolutions involving a higWy
restricted Regency. The resolutions were carried ; the Lords concurred ;
and at a conference an address to the Prince was agreed upon.
The Prince, in his judicious reply, accepted the Regency " in con-
formity to the resolutions now communicated to me." The hopes of
the Opposition now ran high. Pitt was preparing to resume his legal
practice. On February 3 a new session was opened by commission, and
on the 5th the Regency Bill was passed. It provided that the Prince
should exercise the Regency during the King's illness ; that the care of
the King's person should remain with the Queen ; that no royal property
was to be alienated ; that no oflBce or pension should be granted save
during pleasure, nor any peerages created save in the royal family. On
February 13, all the speculations of the politicians were confounded by
the sudden announcement of the King's recovery.
During the excitement in London the atmosphere of Dublin had also
been disturbed. The Duke of Rutland, the young friend of Pitt, died
on October 24, 1787, and had been succeeded by the Marquis of
Buckingham. The Irish Government began to lose strength, owing
to the expected change in England. Grattan had been in London in the
company of Fox and the Prince. He hurried to Dublin before matters
had reached a crisis, and, on the very day on which Pitt introduced
the Regency Bill, moved for an address to the Prince to take on himself
the unrestricted Regency of Ireland. In vain it was pointed out that
it was necessary to wait for the action of the British Parliament,
so as to avoid differences in legislation. When Pitt's Bill arrived, no
notice was taken^ of it. Grattan's address was carried, and presented
to the Viceroy, who refused to touch or forward it. A deputation was
appointed to carry it to the Prince in person. When the deputation
arrived in London, the King had recovered. Meanwhile, certain gentle-
men and noblemen in Dublin, some of whom were in office, had signed
a round robin to oppose any Government that would disturb them for
voting for the Riegency Bill. The round robin was communicated to
the Viceroy, who, in due time, exacted a separate submission from each
1788-93] Nootka Sound. — India. 475
of the signatories ; dissolved their compact ; dismissed some, purchased
others ; and so put an end to what was meant to be a formidable
conspiracy. It was at this very time, while the royal authority was
upheld and respected in England and the hands of the King's Ministers
were strengthened, that the King of France and his Ministers were
entering the rapids of revolution.
The session of 1789 in England reopened after a short adjournment
on March 10. Addresses were passed concerning the King's recovery,
without any protest save from Fox, who protested against an address
to the Queen, and suggested rather one to the Prince of Wales. Two
Treaties of much consequence — one with Holland (April 15, 1788),
and one with Prussia (August 13, 1788) — rwere laid before Parliament.
They provided for a defensive alliance in each case, for the supply of
troops and for the security of each other's possessions. The indepen-
dence of the United Provinces was specially guaranteed. Wilberfbrce
again took up the question of the abolition of the Slave Trade, in a series
of resolutions which had the support of Pitt and Fox. The debate
was not concluded at the end of the session. In 1790 he moved for
a Committee to take evidence, by which much time was lost. In 1791
he made another attempt, but his proposals were rejected by a large
majority, and no further eflFort was made during the period covered by
this chapter. In the session of 1790, which was opened by the King
in person, the affair of Nootka Sound at once attracted attention. A
message from the King conveyed the information that British ships
had been seized by Spain while peacefully engaged in the fisheries at
Nootka Sound. An address was presented; a million was voted; and
the country expected war. During the recess, however, an arrangement
was effected, and, when the late session opened on November 25, 1790,
the King's Speech contained the announcement of peace. A convention
had been signed (July 24) by which Spain released the British vessels,
restored the lands and property seized, and agreed to give compensation.
There was to be no further disturbance of the fisheries on either side ;
no illicit trade with Spanish settlements ; and no British fishing within
ten leagues of Spanish territory on the Pacific coast.
The revival of disturbances in India occasioned debate. In 1788
Tipu attacked the Rdja of Travancore. British troops were sent to
his aid, and Tipu was defeated. In 1791, Lord Cornwallis personally
took command ; but the campaign was not highly successful In 1792
Seringapatam was attacked, and Tipu's army defeated and dispersed. On
February 24 a treaty of peace was made, Tipu ceding half his territories
and paying an indemnity of ,£3,300,000. The Governor-General and
General Meadows resigned their prize-money to the army. In 1793 the
outbreak of war in Europe justified the British in assailing French
possessions in India. Pondicherry was taken, and all the French posses-
sions passed into the hands of the English. Lord Cornwallis hereupon
CH. XIII.
476 The Whig schism. — Imminence of war. [1771-93
returned to England. The debates of 1790 were spirited; but the
Government, pledged by treaty to sustain the Rdja of Travancore,
held its own. In 1791, a Catholic Relief Bill (81 Geo. Ill, cap. 82)
was passed in England^ and like measures were passed in Ireland and for
Scotland. The agitation for the relief of Romafl Catholics had pro^^
ceeded slowly. In 1771 and 1774, Irish Acts enabled Catholics to hold
certain kinds of real estate, and to testify to their loyalty by an oath which
was accepted at Rome. In 1778, an English Act relievfed Catholics from
penalties imposed by 7 William III, cap. 4. The Act of 1791 relieved
Catholics, who took the oath of allegiance, from prohibitions relating to
education, property and the prstctice of the law. It gave Catholic peers
the right of access to the King, and permitted attendance at religious
services and entry into religious Orders. In 1792, a similar Act was
passed in the Irish Parliament ; and, in 1798, an English Act extended
the relief to Scotland.
In 1791, the long-deferred Bill for the better government' of QuebecJ
described elsewhere, was introduced and passed. It was during the
discussion on this Bill that the painful quarrel occurred between Burke
and Fox, which separated their political fortunes for ever. The alienation
between the two statesmen, due to social as well as to political causes, had
been for some time in progress. The outbreak was occasioned by a mis-
understanding. Early in the debate Fox had intimated an intention, or
a wish, to leave the House tiU Burke should have ended the irrelevant
portion of his speech dwelling on the French Revolution. When, at a
later stage, Fox and some of his friends actually left the House — for the
purpose of refreshment only — Burke, with a sensitiveness habitual to
him, interpreted this as a deliberate attempt. to discompose and insult
him ; his temper flared up ; and the breach was beyond repair. The
quairel marked. the long impending division of the Whig party into
two hostile sections, securing the support of one of them to Pitt during
the continuance of his Administration.
Events were now (1792) proceeding rapidly; On May 28 the King's
message relating to war between Russia and Turkey produced acri-
monious debates. His Majesty announced the failure of himself and his
allies in an attempt to put an end to the war and recommended an
increase in the naval forces, to give added weight to his representa-
tions. Shelburne, now Marquis of Lansdowne, emerged from retirement
and took part against the Government. Grey brought forward, at the
request of the Friends of the People, a notice of motion for Reform,
which Pitt resisted on the ground that "this was not a time to make
hazardous experimentsi" In January, 1792, the King had recommended
the reduction of the army and navy. In the following December, he
was compelled to ask for their increase in view of the state of affairs
in France and on the Continent; and, as will be seen immediately, on
Feb;:uary 3, 1793, France declared war. >The Duke of Portland and
1765-93] Revolutionary propaganda.-France declares war. 477
his friends now supported Pitt, and Fox could only muster a minority
of forty. Treaties were negotiated with Hesse-Cassel and Sardinia, in
June, for the supply of troops, and a treaty of peace and commerce was
negotiated with Russia. On August 17 Earl Gower was withdrawn from
Paris, though he was instructed to use conciliatory language to the
existing Government. The. King's Speech had referred to the seditions
which were rife in the kingdom. Disturbances, accompanied by treason-
able declarations, had occurred in various quarters ; and a profuse flow of
disquieting pamphlets had proceeded from a number of societies which
had arisen in Great Britain. The Society of the Bill of Rights (1765),
the Society for Constitutional Information (1780), the Society for Com-
memorating the Revolution (1788), the Constitutional Society (1788), the
London Corresponding Society . (1791), and finally the Friends of the
People (1792) — all had exercised an activity deemed to be dangerous.
Represientatives had been sent to France to express fraternal syinpathy
with the Revolution, and it was suspected that money and arms had been
sent in return. Prosecutions were begun under the Alien Act (33 Geo. Ill,
cap. 4) and the Traitorous Correspondence Act (33 Geo. Ill, cap. 27),
which had been passed in succession to meet the case of these offences.
Some prosecutions failed, some succeeded ; many agitators, including
Thomas Paine, went into exile. Against the propagandism of sedition
the friends of order had not been idle. In l790 Burke had published
his Reflections on the French Revolution, a work which at once became
popular, and which has since exercised a dominating influence over the
opinions of a large part of civilised m^kind. In reply. Mackintosh
(afterwards Sir James) published his Vindiciae Gallicae, which also had
a wide success as the most scholarly attempt to justify the Revolution.
The author subsequently altered his views and confessed to Burke that
in writing it he had been " the dupe of his own enthusiasm."
In France, in the meantime, things had, as is narrated elsewhere,
been going from bad to worse; and in June, 1791, the abortive flight
to Varennes deprived the royal family of their last hope. All the
attempts of the European Powers — half-hearted as they were — to ac-
complish the safety of the royal House failed. The acceptance of the
Constitution by Louis XVI weakened the hands of his allies, while the
emigrant nobles formed an ineifectual army on the frontiers. He was
forced to declare war against the Emperor in April, 1792; and, on
January 21, 1793, the King was executed, and the gauntlet was thrown
down to humanity.
The declaration of war against Great Britain and Holland on
February 3, 1793, followed. Pitt entered on the war with reluctance ;
for he did not share the propagandist enthusiasm of Burke. In 1792, he
had recommended the reduction of the army and navy, which had been
increased in view of the Nootka Sound dispute with Spain in 1790 and
the possible rupture with Russia in 1791. He expressed a confident hope
478 Beginning of the great struggle with France. [1792-3
of fifteen years of peace. So much was he disposed to think peace certain
that, in 1792, he allowed himself to be led into the project of a coalition
with Fox, to which Burke was opposed, but to which the Duke of Portland
had given his assent. The negotiation failed. Lord Loughborough, the
leading Whig lawyer, accepted the Great Seal from Pitt in 1793, and
secured the adherence of Portland. From this time forward a large
section of the Whig party, prominent among whom were Earls Spencer
and Fitzwilliam, the Duke of Portland, Burke, and Wyndham, followed
the lead of Pitt, who now entered on that tremendous conflict which was
to be made glorious at sea at Trafalgar, and finally victorious on land at
Waterloo. On February Ig, 1793, he accepted the gage of battle in
these memorable words: "It now remains to be seen whether, under
Providence, the efforts of a free, brave, loyal and happy people, aided
by their allies, will not be successful in checking the progress of a system,
the principles of which, if not opposed, threaten the most fatal conse-
quences to the tranquillity of this country, the security of its allies, the
good order of every European Government, and the happiness of the
whole human race."
479
CHAPTER XIV.
IRELAND IN THE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY.
With the eighteenth century we enter on an entirely new period of
Irish history. The process of conquest and colonisation, that had been
going on for centuries, had at last been completed, and Ireland lay help-
less in the grasp of her stronger sister, England. This is the key-note
of the situation. Of the land, more than three-fourths had passed into
the hands of a relatively small body of English owners, and of the two
and a quarter millions of inhabitants that composed its population
nearly four-fifths had sunk into a state of bondage bordering on slavery.
Excluded by the operation of the penal laws from all share in the
government of the country, reduced socially to the level of outcasts,
exposed to the tyranny of the informer and the oppression of their land-
lords, steeped in poverty, and debarred the means of acquiring wealth,
while their religion was proscribed, and the possibilities of education
were denied them, and deprived, as they were shortly to be, of the last
vestige of their political rights, by the restriction of the franchise to
the Protestants, the Irish Roman Catholics were subject to conditions
of life as deplorable as those of any class in Europe. Year by year,
the exodus that had set in with the surrender of Limerick and was
drawing off the best blood of the nation, to replenish the armies of
France, Spain, and the Empire, went on without intermission. None
but the old and feeble remained at home to fill the oflices of hewers
of wood and drawers of water for their masters. It is a sad picture,
and the Irishman may well be forgiven who prefers to see in the laurels
won by the Irish brigade on the battle-fields of Europe the real history of
his country at this time, rather than in the gloom and torpor that reigned
at home. But the picture has another and more important aspect. For
it was in the gloom and misery of the period that the Irish nation
had its birth. Modem Ireland, the Ireland with which Englishmen are
most familiar, with its deep drawn lines of social demarcation, dates
only from the extinction of the clan system. The process had been
slow, and painful for England as for Ireland. But the end had come at
last, and, in the common fate that had overtaken both clansmen and
OH. XIV.
480 England's claim to le^slate for Ireland. [i698-i7i9
chieftains, the old obstacles that had presented an unsurmountable
barrier in the past to a sense of nationality and to national action
were removed. But the time for national action had passed away, or
had not arrived ; and it was perhaps rather a sense of a common
religious belief than any conscious feeling of nationality that was to
provide a basis for unity of action in the future. For the period
covered by this chapter the history of Ireland means practically the
history of the English colony in Ireland.
The creation of an English colony In Ireland was the result of
deliberate policy on the part of English statesmen. In such a result
they had seen the only hope of reducing Ireland, as the phrase went, to
civility and good government, and at the same time of securing England
from a hostile neighbour. The latter object had been the predominant
one; and, now that the establishment of the colony had been accom-
plished, it remained to be seen whether the object of the policy pursued
had been achieved.
In considering this question and in tracing the causes which led to
the recognition by England of an independent Irish legislature, it must
be borne steadily in mind that, in the opinion of every Englishman, the
English colony in Ireland existed for the sake of England and not
primarily for its own sake. Without this underlying idea the colony
would never have been established at all. We have seen in an earlier
chapter how, in the pursuance of this policy, the English Parliament
had thought fit at different times to interfere directly in the internal
affairs of Ireland, and in the interests of English manufacturers to sup-
press the Irish woollen industry. In doing so it believed itself to be acting
entirely within its rights, and, in order to put the question, as it thought,
once for all outside the sphere of discussion, it passed an Act in 1719
(6 Geo. I), divesting the Irish House of Lords of its power of judicature on
appeals, and affirming its own power and authority to make laws binding
on the people of Ireland. The assumption that lay at the bottom of its
action did not pass unchallenged. In 1698, at the time of the woollen
controversy, William Molyneux published his Case qf Ireland being bound
by Acts of Parliament in En^and stated, in which, with no little learning
and great moderation, he argued that the English Parliament possessed
no right to the claim it alleged. Molyneux' book was condemned by
the English House of Commons as "of dangerous consequence to the
Crown and Parliament of England," and several attempts were made to
confute it. His argument possesses little more than an academic interest
to-day; but it contained an idea that was destined to germinate and
bear fruit in the future. "If," said he, "it be concluded that the
Parliament of England may bind, Ireland, it must also be allowed that
the people of Ireland ought to have their representatives in the Parlia-
ment, of England. And this, I believe, we should be willing enough to
embrace ; but this is an happiness we can hardly hope for." The idea
1701-7] Opportunity for a legislative Umon neglected. 481
of a legislative union was not a novel one. Cromwell had given practical
expression to it. Sir William Petty had argued strongly in favour of it,
and there exists among the state documents of the Revolution period a
memorial to Government, by an anonymous writer, warmly advocating
its adoption. Later, when the question of a union between England
and Scotland was broached, Irish writers came forward to urge the
adoption of a similar policy in regard to Ireland, petitions to the same
effect were presented by the House of Commons in 1703 and 1707, and
no one who has studied the question can doubt that a union with
Ireland might have been carried at this time with less trouble than it
was in the case of Scotland, and would have been attended with equal
benefits to both partners. But commercial jealousy and indifference to
Irish needs prevailed. The opportunity of effecting a union on a basis
of a mutual imderstanding was lost ; and, though the idea was more
than once revived during the century, times had changed, great parlia-
mentary interests had been formed, and a spirit of independence, not to
say of antagonism, had been aroused, so that, when the Union was
actually effected, this was done in opposition to the wish of Ireland, and
entirely in the interests of England.
The immediate consequence of the refusal of English statesmen to
take advantage of the situation was a visible estrangement on the part
of the colonists and the formation of a so-called Irish Interest. This
Irish Interest must not be confounded with what, for distinction's sake,
must be called a native Interest. Its leaders were men of English
descent and members of the Established Church, between whom and the
Roman Catholic majority there was not only no feeling of sympathy,
but one of intense hostility. Such an Irish Interest, as distinct from
both an English and a native Interest, had always existed in Ireland.
But it had never till the present time been a Protestant Interest also.
Herein lay its strength, so far as England was concerned. Its weakness
lay in its antagonism to the bulk of the nation. The Irish Interest had
already made its influence felt in the first Parliament of William's reign,
in the disputes as to the right of the House of Commons to originate
Money Bills. But its terror of Roman Catholicism and its jealousy of
Presbyterianism had crippled its independence of action, and in its
resistance to the restrictions placed by England on the woollen industry
it had been criminally remiss. Still, it was by no means powerless ; and
in 1701 it showed its indignation at the callous subordination of Irish to
English interests by striking off j&16,000 from the already overgrown
Pension List. In Parliament its acknowledged leader was William King,
Bishop of Derry, promoted, in 1702, to the archbishopric of Dublin.
King was neither a Whig nor a Tory, but something of both. His
position, to put it briefly, was that the Revolution had been made by,
and in the interests of, the Church of England party. But he also held
that in coming to Ireland the English colonists had forfeited none of
C. M. H. VI. CH. XIV. 31
482 Effects of the destruction of the woollen industry. [1702^7
their rights and privileges as Englishmen. They had their own Parlia-
ment and their own Church, and in civil and ecclesiastical matters they
were independent of England. Holding this opinion, he offered a
strenuous resistance to every attempt on the part of the Enghsh
Ministry and the English Parliament to subordinate the Irish to the
English Interest in the country. His view was dictated byi his care for
the Church. For he clearly rfecognise^i that the dignity and usefulness
of the Church rested ultimately on the material prosperity of its members.
Anything that went to weaken the Irish Interest weakened pari passu
the welfare of the Irish Church. He was far from desiring to loosen the
natural bonds that held the colony to England ; but he saw that, if the
colonists lost their position of independence, they would sooner or later
join hands with the natives to the detriment of the Church.
The destruction of the woollen industry proved a deadly blow to the
rising prosperity of the English colony in Ireland. Its effects were felt
in all directions. In 1702 the poverty of the country was so great that
it was feared that the court mourning for the death of WiUiam would
exhaust its resources. The promise to encourage the linen manufacture,
that had been made a pretext for the restrictions on the woollen trade,,
was left unfulfilled, or so fulfilled as tq afford a maximum of advantage
to England. To alleviate the misery, the House of Commons, in 1703,
came to the, unanimous resolution that "it would greatly conduce to the
relipf of the poor and the good of the kingdom, if the inhabitants thereof
would use none other but the manufactures of this kingdom in their
apparel and the furnishing of their houses." Similar resolutions were
passed in 1705 and. 1707 ; . but fashion and necessity rendered them
ineffective. Forced to adopt other measures, the Irish Parliament did
what it could to promote the linen industi'y. The services of Louis
Crommelin, a Huguenot refugee and an eminent specialist in the art of
growing and weaving flax, were secured, spinning-sC|hools were established,
premiums awarded for the best linens, bounties on exports granted, and
a linen Board appointed. By its exertions a flourishing linen trade
was created in Ulster ; but its progress was at first slow, and its benefits,
restricted to a narrow area ; and it was at beSt an inadequate equivalent
for the ruined woollen industry. Meanwhile, the poverty and wretched-
ness of the people increased daily. Finding no employment for their
labours, thousands of artisans, chiefly Protestants, quitted tlie country.
But emigration was only the beginning of the mischief. As the industrial
resources of the country declined, the people were driven back more and
more on to the soil for a subsistence. But the condition of things was
not 'favourable to the development of a flourishing agricultural com-
munity. The soil of Ireland — the spoil of war. and confiscation — was in
the hands of men who, in their uncertainty whether a fresh revolution
might not deprive them of their possessions, were only' anxious to turn
their lands as quickly as possible to account. The Catholic natives,
1702-16] The papulation and the cultivation of the soil. 483
whom the penal laws had reduced to a state of impotence, were driven
off to the bogs and mountains, to make way for sheep and oxen. Wool
growing, thanks to the contraband trade, was a profitable business, so
too was cattle rearing for the provision trade. Little capital was wanted
for either and the returns were quick. In the process, whole villages
were depopulated and the country fiUed with crowds of strolling beggars.
With English grain flooding the markets, there was no inducement to
cultivate the soil. As the favourable leases that had been granted after
the Revolution began to fall in about 1716, rents were raised, in some
cases trebled, and clauses inserted in their renewals, restricting the area to
be put under tillage. In Ulster, where the disabilities placed on the Presby-
terians by the Sacramental Test aggravated matters, the consequences were
most serious. Hundreds of intelligent and industrious farmers, finding
it impossible to make a Kving and resenting the interference with their
consciences, threw up their farms and left the country. Their places
were taken by Catholic natives, who, being debarred by the penal laws
from taking profitable leases, were willing to offer higher rents, in the
hope of making a profit out of the grazing trade. As often as not the
landlord was an absentee, whose only means of turning his lands to
account was to grant long leases of between forty and sixty years to
some Protestant middleman, who made a fortune out of the transaction,
partly as grazier himself, partly by subletting the land at rack-rents to
Catholic cottiers. As he in turn grew rich, he also employed a middle-
man; and so the process went on till at last there were sometimes as
many as three, and even more, middlemen between the proprietor of
the soil and the cultivator. The result can be easily imagined. Of
agriculture, in the strict sense of the word, there was little to be seen.
Here and there a field of wheat or oats could be discerned, sufficient to
meet the wants of the farm. Otherwise, as far as the eye could reach,
nothing but one wide stretch of pasture land, with only the lowing of
oxen and the bleating of sheep to break the silence, and with nothing to
relieve its monotony save the tumbled-down hut of the lonely herdsman.
Where the land was too poor for profitable grazing, or where the neces-
sities of the landlord required his presence, there the Irish cottier raised
his cabin and cultivated the plot of potatoes,- which were becoming more
and more his staple food. Tied to the soil, with little incentive to work
and no opportunity to accumulate capital, with starvation staring him
daily in the face, he grew up to a wild, reckless existence. Marrying
early, he filled his cabin with half-fed, naked children. If he could pay
his landlord his rent, the parson his tithes, and the parish priest his dues,
and withal manage to scrape together a scanty livehhood for himself, he
was tolerably happy.
But for the country the existence of such a class was fraught with
terrible danger. This was recognised by Parliament. In 1716, the
House of Commons intervened with a resolution condemning the insertion
OH. XIV. 31—2
484 Periodical famines. — Anti- English feeling rises. [i'7i5-40
of .clauses in leases restricting tillage ; public granaries were established
and in 1727 an Act was passed, enjoining that five out of every
himdred acres should be under the plough. Considerable efforts were
made, notably by the Dublin Society, founded in 17S1, to promote a
more scientific system of farming and to develop the industrial resources
of the country. But neither legislation nor philanthropic endeavour
could provide a remedy for the evils consequent on the destruction of the
woollen industry. In 1727, and again in 1740, Ireland was visited by
famine which swept away thousands; but the demand for land remained
unsatisfied, thus paving the way for Whiteboy and other agi'arian
disturbances, which were to follow at no very distant date.
With the sad evidences of the folly of tiie policy, that had brought
Ireland to this pass, staring them in the face, a feeling of indignation
against England naturally grew up in the breasts of men, who, though
themselves of English origin, were deeply , concerned in the welfare of
the colony. Were their interests to be for ever subordinated to those
of England? The arguments of Molyneux had passed unheeded; the
authority of their own Parliament had been set at naught; their
demand for a union had been rejected; their protests had been dis-
regarded; and, to add insult to injury, whenever a pension had to be
found, for which no justifiable reason could be alleged to the English
Parliament, it was placed on the Irish Civil List. The feeling of
indignation was all the more justifiable as nothing had occurred to
reflect on the loyalty of the nation at large. Of Jacobitism there was
not the slightest trace. In 1715, when England and Scotland were
convulsed by rebellion, Ireland was perfectly tranquil. In fact, neither
colonists nor natives desired to have anything more to do with the
Stewarts. It was a comparatively trifling affair that brought the long
smouldering discontent of the colonists to an open flame.
The monetary system of Ireland had long been in disorder. She had
no mint of her own, which of itself was a serious disadvantage, > and
commercial stagnation and the constant drain of metal currency in the
form of rents to absentee landlords had produced a deficiency of coin.
In 1724 it was calculated that the entire metal currency amounted to no
more than j&400,000. To relieve the pressure, it was resolved to increase
the number of copper coins. The proposal was reasonable enough ; un-
fortunately, in putting it into execution two mistakes were committed.
Instead of undertaking the business itself. Government granted a patent
to coin to the Duchess of Kendal, one of the King's mistresses. This
lady, who already enjoyed a pension of .£3000 on the Irish list, sold her
patent to an English iron-master of the name of Wood for j&l 0,000.
Jobs were the order of the day, and this one might have passed, had the
amount of the proposed new copper coinage borne any reasonable pro-
portion to the standard cmrency of the country. But to flood the
country with J*! 00,800 worth of halfpttlnies and farthings was a grave
1720-^] Wood's Halfipence. Stmft's Drapier's Letters. 486
economic blunder. The subject was taken up by the only man capable,
by his genius, authority, and literary ability, of adequately expressing
the sentiments of the nation. Jonathan Swift had the misfortime, in his
own opinion, to have been bom in Dublin. He loathed the land of his
birth, and to his last day he reviled the untoward fate that had banished
him to Ireland as Dean of St Patrick's. To-day men call him an Irish
patriot and link his name with those of Molyneux, Lucas, and Grattan.
But he has no real claim to the title. It was not the pure flame of
patriotism, but the scorching fire of indignation at the folly and
stupidity of mankind, that inspired him now and then to break a lance
for Ireland. He did not love the Irish; but, fortunately for Ireland,
he hated the Whigs. The disastrous effects of the woollen legislation
had not escaped his notice, and in 1720 he had come forward with a
pamphlet urging the Irish to use Irish manufactures only. The printer
of the pamphlet was prosecuted ; but the indignation of the public at
the partiality of the presiding judge, Chief Justice Whitshed, was so
intense, that the prosecution had to be abandoned. \Vhen the news
of Wood's patent became known it caused no little commotion in
Dublin. Parliament addressed the Crown on the subject; petitions
against it were presented by most of the city corporations, and resolutions
condemning it were passed by the grand juries. Government consented
to reduce the amount of the new coinage to o&40,000 ; but the concession
failed to pacify public opinion. In the midst of the excitenient Swift
put forth his Drapier's Letters. From the moment he took the matter
in hand the agitation assumed a new and, for Government, a very
serious character. From Wood and his patent Swift passed on to review
the whole systetn of the English administration in Ireland. Taking
up the same constitutional ground as Molyneux in regard to the
claim to bind Ireland by English Acts of Parliament, but in language
bolder than ever Molyneux had dared to use, he retorted that " in reason,
all government without the consent of the governed is the very definition
of slavery ; but, in fact, eleven men well armed will certainly subdue a
single man in his shirt." The argument went home. A prosecution
was commenced against the author of the Letters; the Lord Lieutenant,
the Duke of Grafton, was blamed for his remissness and recalled; and
Lord Carteret was sent over for the express purpose of forcing the patent
through. But the prosecution had to be abandoned and at Carteret's
• own suggestion the patent was revoked.
So far as the cause of the agitation was concerned, the matter was at
an end. But the agitation itself had created quite a new situation in
the relations between England and Ireland. Only five years had elapsed
since the English Parliament had deliberately asserted its right to make
laws binding on Ireland (6 Geo. I). The recent agitation had shown
that the English colonists were not inclined to submit tamely to be
thus deprived of their rights; and to Sir Robert Walpole it was clear
486 Character of Administration-ArclMskop Boulter. [1700-24
that, if Irdand was not to break away from England, some system of
government other than the rather lax one that had hitherto prevailed,
would have to be adopted. Since the beginning of the century the
administration of the country > had rested nominally with the Lord
Lieutenant, who, with the single exception of the Duke of Ormond, had
always been an English nobleman. There had been a rapid succession
in the office; but it was practically a sinecure, and the real business
of government had been transacted by the Lords Justices, with the
assistance of the Irish Privy Council. Though differing nominally as
Whig and Tory, the Lords Justices had, with few exceptions, been
Irishmen. This fact had considerably modified their political views,
so that there was not a little truth in the remark that a Tory in Ireland
would have made a good Whig in England. The same distinction was
observable in the Irish Parlianient. During the sixteenth and seven-
teenth centuries Parliaments had been of rare occurrence in Ireland; but
after the Revolution the practice had grown up of summoning one every
second year. The reason is to b^ found in the insufficiency of the
hereditary revenue of the Crown for defraying the expenses of government.
Parliament meeting regularly at constant intervals, the idea had sprung
up, and was confirmed by practice, that only the death of the sovereign
could effect a dissolution. In this way a seat in the House of Commons
became, owing to the many privileges attached to it, a valuable property;
while by the operation of the English Act (3 William and Mary, c. 2)
rendering it compulsory on all members to take the Oath of Supremacy
and subscribe the Declaration against Transubstantiation, it could only
be held by a Protestant. Recognising their dependence on England,
the Commons had at first shown no desire to pursue an independent
policy; but, as the effects of commercial policy became apparent, a
spirit of opposition, neither Whig nor Tory in character, but directly
anti-English, began to assert itself.
Ireland, it had become clear to Walpole, was drifting from her
moorings. To keep her in place it was of all things most necessary
to strengthen the English Interest. It happened, fortunately for his
plan, that, just at this moment (1724), the primacy fell vacant, by the
death of Ai-chbishop Lindesay. In the ordinary course of events. King
should have succeeded ; but King had identified himself too closely with
the Irish Interest to be acceptable to Walpole, and in November Hugh
Boulter, Bishop of Bristol, was created Archbishop of Armagh. As
a man, a scholar and a bishop. Boulter was admirably qualified to adorn
the station to which he was called ; but it is rather as manager of Irish
politics than as head of the Irish Church that he is remembered in
history. His business, to put it briefly, was to break down the rising
opposition to England, and, in the language of the day, to secure a quiet
parliamentary session. His method of proceeding was simple enough.
Whenever a vacancy occurred on the episcopal or the judicial bench, or
in the revenue, the person recommended by him for promotion was either
1724-42] Boulter's policy. Governvient by the Undertakers. 487
an Englishman or an Irishman of whose subserviency the Primate was
fully assured. His task was all the easier as, apart from the means
employed, his policy was distinctly calculated to benefit Ireland. Coming
thither -when the country was convulsed by Wood's patent, he at once
recognised the necessity of its revocation ; but he was no less convinced
of the importance of reforming the ctirrencyi His plan for reducing the
value of gold, to meet the rise in the price of silver, was efconomiieally
unsoiuid ; but the credit of having attacked the problem, amd of having,
after long years of worry and trouble, succeeded, in a measure, in
alleviating the financial distress of the country, cannot be denied him.
He viewed with sorrow and regret the emigraticin that was draining
Ireland of its industrious population; and it was mainly in consequence
of his endeavours that the measure rendering it compulsory on landlords
to set apart five out of every hmidred acres for tillage was passed, At
different times, when Ireland was visited by famine, he exerted himself
to keep down the price of grain, and did all that lay in his power to
mitigate the misery of the poor. , As virtual head of the Government he
must be held responsible for putting the last touches to the Penal Code,
by an Act (1 Geo. II, c. 9), depriving the Catholics of the franchise, and
by another Act (7 Geo. II, c. 5), completely excluding them from the
legal profession. But his attitude towards the Catholics was not one of
blind hatred. He warmly supported Dr Richardson's efforts to reach the
Irish through their native language, and, if the proselytising principle of
the Charter schools, of which he was an early and ardent promoter, strikes
us to-day as radically mistaken, the institution was at least a reasonable
attempt to substitute persuasion for persecution. But neither political
ability, nor private genieisosity, nor a genuine interest in the spiritual
welfare of the Irish could compensate for the fact that his aim in all
things was to subordinate Irish interests to those of England. The
pride, if not the virtue, of Irishmen was outraged by a state of affairs,
in which subserviency to Government constituted the sole claim to office.
This fact introduced a personal element into the character of parlia-
mentary Opposition, which under King in the House of Lords, and the
Brodricks, father and son, in the House of Commons, had worn
a distinctly patriotic aspect. For, seeing themselves in danger of being
excluded from all share in the Government, the great borough pro-
prietors prepared to come to terms with the Primate, arid, on condition
of being allowed to monopolise all the lucrative offices of State, agreed
to drop their opposition, and to secure for Government a permanent
"quiet session." It was a disgraceful bargain and highly detrimental
to public morality; but the Government of the "Undertakers" did
not on the whole work badly. For, though it was mainly their own
interests they had in view, still, as Irishmen, thfey had some care for
the country, and Boulter was wise enough to hold the reins as slackly
over them as was consistent with the promotion of the English Interest.
488 Political aims of Archbishop Stone. [-1242-53
Thus, except for the chronic distress of the country, the years
passed quietly away, and at Boulter's death in 1742, no objection
was taken to his successor, Archbishop Hoadly, whose daughter had
married the son of Speaker Boyle. Even the promotion of George
Stone to the primacy on Hoadly's death in 1747 foiled at first to
disturb the general harmony. He was barely forty; but it seemed
a sufficient explanation that he was the brother of the Duke of
Newcastle's friend, the influential Under-Secretary of Statej Andrew
Stone, and besides had the reputation of being himself an able man.
Of his ability there was no question — or, as it soon became clear,
of his ambition. Unlike Boulter, who had been content to goverfa
through the Undertakers, and Hoadly, who had allied himself with
them, Stone was determined to govern independently of them. It
was partly jealousy and ambition, partly a conviction that the govern-
ment of the Undertakers was tending indirectly to weaken the English
Interest, that led him to make the attempt. Provided he could divide
them and build up a party of his own, he might reckon upon ruling
alone. With this object, he entered into an alliance with the Ponsonby
faction, in order to oust Boyle from the Speakership. The scheme
was well laid; but Boyle was alive to his danger, and Parliament
had no sooner met in 1751 than he opened a counter-attack on the
Primate by preferring a charge of malversation against the Surveyor-
General, Nevill. Stone was unable to prevent a resolution requiring
Nevill to make good his defalcations under pain of being expelled the
House ; but he scored a success on a much more important point. In
1749 the revenue had shown a considerable surplus, which the Commons
had, assigned to the reduction of the National Debt. A similar surplus
occurred in 1751. It was proposed to devote part of it to the same
object ; and heads of a Bill to that eifect were transmitted to England.
The Bill was returned thence as accepted, but with the addition of a
preamble expressing the consent of the Crown to the course proposed.
The object of this preamble, to insist on the right of the Crown to dispone
of the surplus revenue, was observed and sharply criticised in the Irish
House of Commons ; but the Bill was allowed to pass. It was thought
Stone would take the hint; but he showed no intention of coming to
terms with the Opposition, and a memorial, personally presented to the
King by the Earl of Kildare, protesting against the Money Bill as
unconstitutional was treated with contempt. Accordingly, when Parlia-
ment reassembled in 1753, the attack on Government was renewed. This
time Nevill's expulsion was carried into eflect, and a Money Bill, with
a preamble similar to that of 1751, was rejected by a majority of five.
Government retaliated by suddenly proroguing Parliament, depriving
four of the principal members of the Opposition of their ofiices, and
seizing the surplus revenue by an Order under the King's sign-manual.
These proceedings raised a storm of indignation in the coimtry. The
1753-61J Stone and the Undertakers.-Religious toleration. 489
~ ■ J —
Press teemed with pamphlets liampooning Government, and particularly
the Primate, in the most outrageous fashion. The peace of the city was
disturbed by tumults, not unattended with bloodshed, that recalled the
days of Wood's Halfpence. Stone had to barricade himself from the
mob ; but he begged Ministers in England to stand firm. The Opposi-
tion, he insisted, was on its last, legs: to yield was to sacrifice the English
Interest in the country for ever. . But George H thought otherwise, and
determined to come to terms with the Speaker. The Lord Lieutenant,
the Duke of Dorset, Stone's ally, was dismissed. A modus was easily
arranged between his successor, the Marquis of Hartington, and the
Opposition. Boyle was created Earl of Shannon with a yearly pension
of 4*2000; Anthony Malone was compensated with the Chancellorship of
the Exchequer; and the Earl of Bessborough was conciliated with a
promise of the Speakership for his son John Ponsonby. Everybody^
except Stone — and of course the nation^ — was satisfied. It was a
scandalous business; but it answered its purpose of securing a quiet
parliamentary session. On returning to England at the close of it,
Hartington omitted Stone's name from the Commission of Government.
The omission greatly mortified him ; and, when, on the formation of the
Pitt-Newcastle Ministry in 1757, the government of Ireland was entrusted
to the Duke of Bedford, he Went, for a time, into Opposition. But his
power was no longer what it had been, and, having promised submission,
he was again included in the Commission of Government. The attempt
to break the Undertakers had failed. Things returned to their normal
condition ; and, when a French expedition, commanded by Thurot, effected
a landing at Carrickfergus in ,1760, aU parties, including the Catholics,
rallied to the support of Government. The danger was averted, and
in 1761, when Bedford sinrendered the sword of State to the Earl of
Halifax, the political horizon appeared cloudless.
The eagerness with which the Catholics had come forward to testify
to their loyalty, and the cordial reception given to their addresses,
both by Parliament and Government, were specially hopeful signs of a
better miderstanding between them and the Protestants. Of religious
intolerance there was really very little on either side. The wave of free
thought that was spreading over Europe and permeating its literature
had not failed to affect Ireland. The fact, even if it was deplored by
those who still clung to their old beliefs, was admitted on both sides.
An atmosphere of scepticism was fatal to the Penal Code. What
element of religious persecution there had been in it had long ceased to
be operative. Among the Catholics themselves, the rapidly increasing
number of conversions was significant of a relaxation of religious
principle, and of a growing reluctance to sacrifice their material welfare
to a mere point of theology. The prevailing spirit of indifference to
religion did not escape the notice of John, Wesley, during his frequent
visits to Ireland at this time. He encountered very little direct
OH. XIV.
490 Agricultural distress. — Whiteboys. — Oakboys. \ [i76i-3
opposition ; indeed, the Catholic, peasantry flocked to hear him; but his
preaching left no permanent mark on the religious life of the nation.
Butj as religious differences sank into the background^ a new
problem suddenly started into prominence. It has been pointed out
how, by the destruction of the woollen industry, the bulk of the popu'-
lation had been thrown back on the soil for its existence, and how, by
the operation of the laws festrlcting commerce, a great impulse had
been given to the conversion of ai*able into pasture land. Cork, the
cfentre of the provision trade, was now in population and wealth the
second city in the kingdom. . The profits of the business were enormous,
andj to supply it, Munster and the adjacent parts of Connaught and
Leinster had been turned into one large pasture field. With an ever
increasing demand for meatj the greater by reason of a murrain that
had recently broken out amongst English cattle, rents rose to an average
of ^3 an acre, for fairly good land. Pasture was exempt from tithe,
andj to all but the large graziers, the rents were prohibitive. To make
room for more cattle j the peasantry were evicted from their holdings, and
lands which were regarded as commons taken from them and enclosed.
The distress entailed by these proceedings was extreme, and in their
desperation the peasantry resorted to outrage and intimidation. Towards
the close of 1761 ; bands of men, numbering sometimes two or three
hundred, known at first as Levellers, but later as Whiteboys, from the
*hite shirts they Wore over their clothes, ranged the country during the
long winter nights, tiearing down enclosures, hamstringing cattle, and,
according to their view, administering a sort of rude justice on their
oppressors. Obn&XioUS landlords were warned against exacting excessive
rents ; but it was the tithe-ptoctor and tithe-farmer that chiefly felt the
bnmt of popular vengeance. It is said that no actual murders were
committed ; but there was a gooid deal of persolial violence, and so
widespread was the conspiracy, so swiftly a,nd secretly did the White-
boys work, that the arm of the law was paralysed over a large extent of
the province. A number of individuals were, however, arrested and
a special commission presided over by Chief Justice Sir Richard Aston,
was sent down to restore order. A few persons were executed ; but
justice was tempered with mercy, and the blessings of a sorely-tried but
grateful peasantry accompanied the Chief Justice on his departure. The
movement was stifled; but nothing was done to remove the root of the
disease, and, ever and anon, the peace of the province was disturbed by
agrarian otitrage. The fact that the Whiteboys were mostly, if not
exclusively. Catholics threatened a revival of sectarian intolerance. It
was said they were only waiting for French assistance to create another
rebellion. But no evidence of such intention was forthcoming, and the
argument lost its point entirely, "when similar disturbances broke out,
almost at the same time,' amongst the Protestants in Ulster; In the
case of the Oakboys' rising, which, starting near Armagh in 1763, spread
1753-73] Steelboys -Political situation at death of George II. 491
rapidly over the adjacent counties, the grievances chiefly complained of
were tithes and the iniquitous assessment of county rates, which threw
the burden of road-making almost entirely on the tenant. The rising
was disgraced by none of the fiendish outrages that marked the White-
boys' insurrection, and was easily suppressed without much bloodshed;
while the chief cause of it was speedily removed by a new and more
equitable Road Act. More closely resembling the Whiteboys' insurrection
was that of the Steelboys, some years later, in counties Down and Antrim.
The rising was directly attributed to the exaction, by the Marquis of
Donegal, of a heavy fine from his tenantry, as the condition of a renewal
of their leases, at a time when a depression in the linen trade had
reduced them to the direst extremities. The fact that they were
industrious Presbyterians made no difference. Inability to meet the
demand was followed by wholesale eviction and, as a natural result, by
agrarian outrages hardly less atrocious than those of the Whiteboys.
The insurrection was suppressed with difficulty ; but nothing was done
to remedy the evil ; and the Steelboys, with their wives and families, left
the country, to swell the ranks of England's enemies in America. It
was calculated that in 1773 and the five preceding years Ulster was
drained of one-fourth of its trading cash and of the same proportion of
its manufacturing population.
These disturbances were full of significance for the future. At the
time, however, the agrarian problem attracted less attention than the
political. The parliamentary storm that had raged in 1753 had passed
away; but its efifects remained. Neither to the English Ministry nor to
the little knot of independent county members in the Irish House of
Commons was the victory of the Undertakers at all satisfactory. To
the Ministry it had long been evident that the power pf the Under-
takers was inconsistent with the system of keeping Ireland in a position
of subordination to England. For, however venal, they were nevertheless
Irishmen, who agreed with the Patriots on many points, by raising which
they could at any time seriously embarrass Government. Their recent
victory had served to emphasise the danger and had led to a revival of
the proposal for a union. But times had changed since Molyneux had
modestly urged its adoption ; and a mere rumour that Government was
meditating such a step led to a serious riot in Dublin in 1759. A
union, indeed, was not contemplated; but there was a growing feeling
in England that, if the existing relations between the two countries
were to be maintained, some change in the form of government had
become inevitable. The general indignation aroused in Ireland by the
political fiasco of 1753 had resulted in a demand for the shortening
of the duration of Parliament, as a likely means of diminishing the
importance of the Undertakers, by bringing them more under the
control of their constituencies. It was warmly supported by the
Patriots in the House of Commons. The general election that foUowed
492 Demandifor Umiting the duration of Parliament. [i760-7
the accession of George III had given them a leader of unquestioned
ability in the person of Henry Flood ; and hardly less important than
Flood's election was that of Charles Lucas. Without Flood's ability
and oratorical talent,, Lucas was an earnest and honest politician. He
had at an earlier period of his career come into open conflict with the
Government owing to the persistency with which he had striven, as
a Common Councillor, to reform the Dublin Corporation., To evade
punishment he had gone into voluntary exile for several years ; but his
memory was cherished by the citizens of the metropolis; and, having
secured a pardon, he was rewarded by being elected one of their
representatives in Parliament. The interest excijted by the proposal
to limit the duration of Parliament completely dwarfed, for a time,
the other items in the popular programme — a diminution of the
Pension List, a Habeas Corpus Act, a Place Bill, the independence, of
the judicial bench, and the creation of a national militia. Accordingly,
when Parliament met on October 22, 1761, the matter was at once
brought forward by Lucas. Leave was given to bring in heads of
a Bill limiting the duration of Parliament to seven years ; but further
than this the House declined to go, and a motion recommendiing it for
transmission to England was rejected. The measure.was in fact as
thoroughly distasteful to the Undertakers as it was to Government.
But resolutions flowed in from all sides warmly supporting it. Govern-
ment and the Undertakers yi^ere in an awkward position, the latter
particularly. For, though they clearly recognised that the measure
was calculated to diminish their influence, they were fully alive to the
danger of obstihately resisting public opinion. A way to secure its
rejection, and, at the same time, to preserve their credit with the
country was discovered. Knowing that the Bill was just as objection-
able to Government they resolved to support it, and to throw the odium
of its rejection on the Irish Privy Council. These tactics succeeded in
1763 ; but, supported by Flood, Lucas held his ground tenaciously, and
in the following session (1765-6) the Bill was once more referred to the
Council for transmission. To refuse a second time passed the courage
of the Council, and in the firm expectation that the Bill would be, as it
actually was, shelved in England, it was transmitted thither.
But, much as English Ministers disliked the measure, they disliked
the Undertakers even more ; and towards the close of the viceroyalty of
the Earl of Northumberland, who had succeeded Halifax in 1763, a plan
was formed to break their power, by enforcing continual residence in
Ireland on the Lord Lieutenant. There was some difiiculty in finding
anyone willing to accept the office on these terms. Eventually Lord
Townshend consented to make the experiment. To strengthen his hands
against the Undertakers, he was authorised to hint at a concession of
some points in the popular programme. Unfortunately, in opening
Parliament in October, 1767, he allowed himself to suggest a Bill to
1767-9] Townshend's viceroyalty.— Octennial Act. 493
secure the independence of the judges as in England. This w£is more
than his colleagues in London intended. They returned the long desired
Bill for limiting the duration of Parliament, altering it from seven to
eight years, to meet the custom obtaining in Ireland of Parliament
meeting only in alternate years, and not from any desire, as is generally-
stated, to secure its rejection ; but they insisted on adding a clause to
the Judges' Bill allowing of the removal of any judge on a joint address
of both Houses of the English Parliament. It was a wholly unnecessary
stipulation ; but it emphasised the intention of Ministers to keep Ireland
in a state of subjection to England; and, being so interpreted in Ireland,
it completely destroyed the popularity that had accrued to Townshend,
and enabled the Undertakers to gratify their resentment against the
Octennial Bill by throwing out a Bill for an augmentation of the army.
Townshend had some reason to complain of the way he had been treated,
and the caricature drawn of him, with his hands tied and his mouth open,
was doubtless very expressive of his feelings. But his irritation only
intensified his resentment against the Undertakers, and, Parliament
being immediately dissolved, he set to work resolutely to break their
power. His policy, and the means he took to realise it, recalled the
days of Boulter and Stone ; but the Octennial Act had rendered his task
of securing a majority by corruption infinitely more difficult than it had
been to them. He was still engaged in preparing his plan of campaign
when Parliament met in October, 1769. It was known that Government
was anxious to pass the Augmentation Bill, and, though the country
could ill afibrd the additional expense, there was a general inclination to
acquiesce in the proposal. But this benevolent attitude changed to one
of opposition, when Parliament was asked to consent to a Money Bill that
had originated in the Privy Council. Nothing irritated Irishmen more
than the interpretation which English Ministers persisted in placing on
Poynings' Law. The right to control their purse was the last remnant
of independence they possessed and they were unanimous not to surrender
it. They readily granted the taxes demanded and even acquiesced in
the measure to augment the army ; but the Money Bill was rejected, on
the ground that it had not originated with the Commons. Following
the precedent established by Lord Sydney in 1692, Townshend brought
the session to a sudden close. In his speech proroguing Parliament he
protested against the construction placed by Parliament on Poynings'
Law, and insisted on his protest being entered on the Journals of both
Houses. But times had changed since the Commons heid been willing
to barter their freedom for a free hand against the Roman Catholics,
and an order was passed by the House, forbidding the clerk to obey
the injunction. The quarrel attracted considerable attention in England
and an article in thfe Pvblic Advertiser, calling on the English Parliament
to vindicate its authority, and, if necessary, to interfere forcibly to
suppress " the spirit of seditious obstittacy " in Ireland, exasperated
OB. ziv.
494 A parliamentary mc^ority purchased. [1770-5
public opinion there. A resolution curiously recalling the treatment of
Molyneux' book by the English Parliament was passed by the Irish House
of Commons, ordering the axticle to he burnt by the common hangman.
It was observed that Townshend: did not imitate Sydney in dissolving
Parliament ; but one prorogation succeeded another, and, in the mean-
time, the Lord Lieutenant steadily pursued his plan of purchasing a
parHa;mentary majority. The Privy Council was remodelled; the Earl
of Shannon, Speaker Ponsonby, and a crowd of minor placemen were
removed from office; peerages were distributed with a liberal hand;
places were multiplied, and, despite the promise of the Crown to the
contrary, the Civil List was encumbered with additional pensions. . The
result was apparent when Parliament reassembled in February, 1771.
An address, thanking the King for continuing. Townshend in office was
voted ; but Ponsonby refused to present it, and a new Speaker was found
in the person of Sexton Peiy. The business of the session was transacted
without difficulty; but outside Parliament the indignation with which
the shameful traffic was regarded rose to fever heat. The public Press
teemed with lampoons, in which neither the person, nor the character,
nor the habits, of the Lord Lieutenant were spared, His administration
was ridiculed, and he was himself held up to scorn as a second Sancho
Panza, in a series of powerful letters, afterwards collected under the title
of Barataricma. From being the most popular, Townshend had become
the best hatedj man in the kingdom, and the appointment of Earl
Harcourt as his successor came as a relief both to him and the country.
But it was soon to appear that the change of Viceroy had brought
no change of system with it. The majority which corruption had
purchased corruption alone could : maintain. To satisfy its supporters.
Government strained its resources to the utmost. New taxes were
imposed and fresh loans raised; but the ever increasing number of
bankruptcies was a sure sign that the limits of taxation were being
rapidly reached. Public indignation was not so loudly expressed as it had
been in Townshend's time. Harcoui-t was not personally disliked ; Lucas
had died in 1771 ; Flood, with an exaggerated notion of his ability to
influence Government, had accepted office ; and Grattan, on whom his
mantle had fallen, only entered Parliament in 1775. But the inability
of the country to meet the expenses of government was unmistakable,
and the fact that these expenses had be^en incurred in a time of peace,
for the avowed purpose of maintaining a sysjtem directly hostile to
Ireland, rendered the situation unbearable.
On opening Parliament in 1775, Harcourt announced the intention
of Government to concede certain privileges to Irish vessels engaged in
the Newfoundland fisheries, to allow Ireland to provide clothing for
her own forces when abroad, and to grant a small bounty on fiax-seed
imported into the country. These concessions, he added, would,, he
hoped, " seciure riches and prosperity to the people of Ireland." The
iTTS-v] Harcourfs Admimstration.-Commerdal distress. 495
unintentional irony of his words is not less remarkable than the utter
inadequaicy of the concessions to aJleviate the distress of the country,
which the outbreak of the war with America, by closing the only profit-
able market for Irish linens and entailing an embargo on the export
of provisions, was every day rendering more acute. But Harcourts
attention was wholly directed to the business of managing Parliament.
So far, he had been successful in eliciting from it a loyal address in
response to the declaration of war, and in winning a reluctant consent to
the withdrawal, for service abroad, of 4000 of the 12,000 troops designed
for the defence of the country. But a dissolution was approaching,
and he was not so sure of the futile as he could have desired to be.
In fact, the declaration of war against America had been received
with very mingled feelings in Ireland. An amendment to the address,
urging the adoption of conciliatory measures, had been rejected ; but the
amendment spoke the general sense of the people, especially of the
Presbyterians in Ulster. That Ireland was suffering from much the same
grievancles as those which had led to the revolt of the colonies was the
subject of general comment. The similarity was pointed out by the
Americans themselves in an Address to the people of Ireland; and a
voice had been raised in the Parliament of Great Britain, warning the
Irish that, if the experiment of taxing the Americans without their
consent was successful, their turn would come next. The danger was
probably exaggerated ; but the writer in the Public Advertiser did not
stand alone in his opinion that England had the right to tax Ireland;
and the refusal of Lord North to yield to Harcourt's request to refrain
from certifying a Money Bill as a reason for summoning a new Parliament
was a sufficient proof that the claim to legislate for Ireland was to be
fully maintained'.
Harcourt retired in November, 1776. To smooth the way for his
successor, the Earl of Buckinghamshire, he had, in one day, created
eighteen peers and advanced seven barons and five viscounts a step in
the peerage. But public opinion was growing too strong to be held in
check by such a travesty of government. The distress of the country
was appalling. Trade was wholly at a standstill; rents could not be
paid ; warehouses had to be closed ; every day money grew scarcer and
bankruptcies more frequent. Thousands of hands were turned off, and
in Dublin the streets swarmed with half rstarving mechanics, whose sole
means of subsistence was the half-pound of oat-meal doled out to them
daily by charity. Things, in shorty had reached a pass when, as Hussey
Burgh put it, England would either have to support the country or
concede her the means of supporting herself. When Parliament met in
October, 1777, a motion to retrench expenses was brought: forward by
1 It should be remembered that cause had to be shown for the summoning an
Irish I'arliament, and thatj before being submitted to it, all Bills had to be
"certified" in England.
496 Nonrimportationpledges.-Biseof the Volunteers. [i777-8
Grattan. The motion was rejected. But the fact that Government was
forced shortly afterwards to borrow =f 50,000 from the Bank of England
to pay thie army left no doubt as to the seriousness of the situation. The
necessity of removing some of the existing restrictions was admitted
by the Ministry, and Bills were framed conceding to . Ireland the
privilege of exporting all her articles of produce, with the exception
of wool and woollen goods, to the colonies in British vessels, and of
importing all goods, except tobacco, directly from them ; permitting her
to export her manufactiu'ed glass to all places, except Great Britain;
and abolishing the restrictions on the importation into Great Britain
of cotton-yam juid sail-cloth. The proposals drew down a storm of
angry protest from the manufacturers of Manchester, Liverpool, Glasgow,
StaiFord, and other places. "^ A foreign invasion," it was said, " could
scarcely have excited a greater alarm." Government yielded' to the
pressure put upon it, and, of all the proposed benefits, only that of
allowing Ireland to export her cotton^yaim and sail-cloth was conceded.
The inadequacy of the concession caus^ great dissatisfaction in Ireland ;
but there was no disposition to lay the blame on Government, and the
conciliatory attitude adopted, by Ministers towards the English Catholics
at this time afforded the Irish Parliament an opportunity of testifying
to its own liberality, by an Act relieving their Catholic countrymen of
the chief social disabilities laid on them by the penal laws and conceding
them the right to acqiiire land by taking leases for 999 years. It was a
large and generous measure of relief, arid, coming as a free gift from the
Protestants, did more than anything else to strengthen that feeling of
national identity, which showed itself in the subsequent struggle for free
trade and legislative independence. But the selfishness of British manu-
facturers in intercepting the boon intended by Government was deeply
resented, and associations were formed pledging their members not to
import or wear any article of British manufacture. The enthusiasm with
which the movement was taken up by all ranks and classes of society, and
its success, startled the nation into a sense of its own power. Buckingham-
shire regarded the situation with apprehension. The people were still
perfectly loyal ; but they were clearly in earnest, and, with the example
of the colonies before them, there was no saying what 'might happen.
Since France had taken part in the War, the Channel swarmed with
privateers. All external trade had ceased, and any day might witness an
invasion. But, with a country practically denuded of troops, and with
an empty treasury, Goveriiment could only look on in helpless inactivity.
Its inabihty to respond to a call from Belfast for a small garrison to
ward off an impending invasion brought matters to a crisis. Driven to
depend on their own resources, the citizens of Belfast acted as though
Government had been dissolved, and raised a volunteer corps for their
own protection. From Belfast the movement spread rapidly. Every-
where the local gentry put themselves at its head. The danger of
1778-9] Demand for Free Trade. — A:short Money Bill. 497
foreign invasion, the helplessness of Government, the novelty of the
thing itself, and the appeal it made to the military instincts of the
nation, conspired to render volunteering the most popular and formidable
movement the country had ever known. Though excluded, by their
inability to carry arms, from actively participating in it, the Catholics
showed their ardour in the cause by liberally subscribing for the purchase
of implements of war. Buckinghamshire, who had hailed the appearance
of the Volunteers with a sigh of relief, began to tremble for the con-
sequences, when he saw how formidable they were becoming. He would
gladly have suppressed them ; but this was out of his power, and to the
reproaches of his colleagues in London, he could only urge the necessity
of " temporising." Of politics there had at first been no sign ; but it
was not long before the Lord Lieutenant observed a disposition, in
certain quarters, to trnii the situation to political account. It could
hardly be otherwise. The Volunteers were to a man non-importers, and,
next to the safety of the country, which was now i provided for, free
trade lay nearest their thoughts. As the time when Parliament was to
meet approached, members were urged by their constituencies to limit
supplies to six months, until the commercial grievances were redressed.
Buckinghamshire was alarmed at the direction things were taking ; but
the Speech from the Throne showed no appreciation of the seriousness
of the situation. An equally colourless Address was proposed and
seconded. Rising to oppose it Grattan pronounced both speech and
address to be an insult to the common sense of the nation. The time
for such inanities had passed. Ireland was in a state of dire distress
and he moved that nothing could satisfy her but " a free export trade."
Hussey Burgh proposed " a free export and import," Flood " a free
trade" simply; and in this form the amended Address was carried
without a division. In his answer, the King announced his intention of
concurring in all measures which, on mature consideration, should be
thought conducive " to the general welfare of all his subjects." But the
position was too grave to permit of such ambiguous phrases. A few days
later a riot broke out in the "Liberties" at Dublin ; members of Parliament
were forced to alight from their coaches and swear to vote for Free Trade
and a short (i.e. six months') Money Bill. The House of Commons passed
a resolution resenting this intrusion on their authority. But there was no
diiference of opinion between them and the mob. It was proposed that,
in view of the distress of the country,, it would be inexpedient to grant
any new taxes. The motion was carried by 170 to 47, and was followed
by another, limiting supplies to six months. The resolution was
supported by Hussey Burgh in words which electrified the House and
stirred the nation to its depths — "Talk not to ine of peace," he said,
"It is not peace; but smothered war. England has sown her laws in
dragons' teeth, and they have sprung up armed men." The resolution
was carried by 188 to 100. The vote was one that Government could
C. M. H. VI, GH. XIV. S2
498 Free Trade granted.-Legislative Independence. [1779-80
not mistake; and on December 18, Lord North submitted three proposi-
tions to the British Parliament, repealing the laws prohibiting the
export of Irish wool and woollen goods to any part of Europe, abolishing
the restrictions placed on Irish glass, and admitting Ireland to all the
advantages of the colonial trade on terms of an eqUality of taxes and
customs. The non-importation agreements had effectually ' convinced
English manufacturers that Ireland was their best market, and this
time they offered no opposition. Bills based on the prdposab were
drawn up, and easily passed through Parliament.
The joy with which the concessions were received in Ireland was
largely tinged with the reflexion that she had owed them more to her
own exertions and the unsheathed swords of the Volunteers, than to the
generosity of England. Would England abide by the agreement ? The
commercial concessions implied no renunciation, on her part, of her
claim to legislate for Ireland. Would she not, when the opportunity
offered, recall the boon, that had been so reluctantly granted ? Englaild
was herself responsible for this distrust. The feeling of gratitude gave
place to one of uncertainty. Nothing could satisfy Ireland except the
recognition of her national independence. Of this feeling Grattan made
himself the mouthpieeei It was only four years since he had entered
Parliament; but his ability, patriotism, and eloquence had already won
him a conspicuous position both inside and outside the House of
Commons. Early in 1780j in replying to an address presenting him
with the freedom of the Guild of Dublin Merchants, he announced
his intention of raising, in the following session, the question of the
legislative independence of the Irish Parliament. His decision alarmed
Government, and even his own friends doubted its wisdom. Considering
the excited state of the country and the determined attitude of the
Volunteers, now fully 4!0,000 strong, there could be no question that
the step he proposed to take would put Parliament in the dangerous
position of either running counter to the wishes of the nation, or of
presenting England with an ultimatum. The Duke of Leinster declared
that he for one " had no idea of constitutional questions being forced by
the bayonfet." Lord Hillsborough, the Secretary of State, suggested his
favourite plan of a legislative union. Buckinghamshire begged him not
to mention the subject: the mere suggestion of such a plan would set
Ireland on flame. For himself, he preferred to try to tune Parliament.
True to his promisej Grattan on April 19 submitted a motion to the
House of Commons affirming the legislative independence of Parliament.
His speech made a great impression on the House; and Government,
feeling itself unable to meet it with a direct negative, moved the adjourn-
ment of the debate. The danger was tided over; but Buckinghamshire
admitted to Hillsboroiigh that, though many members were annoyed
that the subject had been mooted, still the feeling was almost unanimous
in its favour. Grattan expressed himself satisfied with the result. " No
1780-2] Perpetual Mutiny Bill. — Folunteer Convention. 499
British Minister will now, 1 should hope," he said, " be mad enough to
attempt, nor servant of Government desperate enough to execute, nor
Irish subject mean enough not to resist, by every means in his power, a
British Act of Parliament." The hope was well grounded. Two cases
of desertion from the army had recently occurred ; but in both cases the
magistrates refused to convict on the ground that, Ireland having no
Mutiny Act of her own, the English Act could not be regarded as
binding. To meet the difficulty, a Mutiny Bill was immediately intro-
duced. The Bill placed Government in the awkward position of either
having to admit the inadequacy of the English Act or losing control of
the army. Buckinghamshire was urged, against his judgment, to resist
it; but, despite his efforts, it passed and was transmitted to England.
It was returned in August, with the omission of the words limiting its
operation to one year. The indignation of the coimtry was intense ; but
the Bill was passed. Corruption had accomplished what nothing else
could effect. Congratulating himself on his master-stroke, Buckingham-
shire brought the session as quickly as possible to a close, and handed
over the sword to his successor, the Earl of Carlisle. The situation, so it
seemed to Carlisle, was by no means hopeless. A threat of parliamentary
reform had considerably strengthened Government, by attaching to it
all those who, for personal reasons, dreaded any such measure. A small
secret fund, Carlisle suggested, would greatly assist in keeping them
steady. He had not miscalctdated the situation. When Parliament met
in October, 1781, a motion by Grattan for leave to introduce a limited
Mutiny Bill was rejected by 177 to 33. He replied with a threat to appeal
to the country, in a "formal instrument." A week or two later, he
published his Observations on the Mutiny Bill, and on February 16, 1782,
a Convention representing the Volunteers of Ulster met at Dungannon.
Resolutions were passed in favour of a modification of Poynings' Law,
a limited Mutiny Bill, the independence of the judicial bench, and a
further relaxation of the laws against the Catholics. The moderation
of the resolutions was not less significant because they represented the
opinion of 80,000 men in arms. A week later, Grattan moved an address
to the Kiijg, declaratory of the independence of the Irish legislature.
"Do you," he said addressing the House, " hesitate to weary the ears of his
Majesty with your solicitations, or do you wait till your country speaks
to you in thunder .?" But the House was not to be moved : a motion
to adjourn the debate was carried by 137 to 68. Outside Parliament,
however, the agitation gained in volume daily, andj encouraged by the
addresses that flowed in from all quarters, Grattan gave notice of his
intention to renew his declaration on April 16. His intention and the
determined attitude of the country alarmed Carlisle, and on March 27
he wrote suggesting the advisability of repealing the Act of 6 George I.
But the credit or discredit of yielding was not to be his. Before
his letter reached its destination, the Ministry of Lord North had fallen
OH. XIV. 32—2
600 Legislative Independence conceded. [i782
and a new Administration, under the Marquis of Rockingham, had
been formed. On April 14 the new Lord Lieutenant, the Duiie of
Portland, arrived in Dublin. Ministers were known to be favourable to
Ireland : two of them, Rockingham and Fox, were personal friends of
Lord Charlemont. But neither Charlemont nor Grattan would consent
to postpone the question, and on the day appointed the latter rose to
make his promised motion. His opening words struck the key-note of
the position. " I am now," he said, " to address a free people." To the
nation in arms, to the Volunteers, they that day owed the independence
of Parliament. And now having given a Parliament to the people, he
hoped and doubted not that the Volunteers would retire and leave the
people to Parliament. He moved to assure his Majesty that the Crown
of Ireland was an imperial Crown, inseparably annexed to the Crown of
Great Britain, but that the kingdom of Ireland was a distinct kingdom,
with a Parliament of her own, the sole legislature thereof. Ministers
were mortified to find that their good intentions counted for so little.
But there was nothing for it but to yield with as much grace and
promptitude as possible. In submitting the proposals of Government
to the British Parliament, Fox said it was desired to " meet Ireland on
her own terms and give her everything she wanted in the way she seemed
to wish for." There was no opposition. A Bill repealing the statute
of 6 George I was passed, and when the Irish Parliament reassembled,
after a short adjournment, on May 27, Portland announced that the
King was prepared to give his unconditional assent to a modification of
Poynings' Law and a limitation of the Mutiny Act to two years.
Grattan expressed his entire satisfaction. "I understand," he said,
"that Great Britain gives up m toto every claim to authority over
Ireland." As a token of gratitude, and to signify to the world that
Ireland was prepared to stand or fall with England, the House of
Commons, at his suggestion, voted =£"100,000 and 20,000 men for the
support of the British navy. A Habeas Corpus Act had already become
law ; and, to crown the work of reconciliation, a measure was passed
relieving the Catholics from some of the restraints placed on their
education and the exercise of their religion. On July 27 Portland
adjourned Parliament to September 24.
Ireland had apparently, in Fox' words, got all she wanted. But
the very completeness of the surrender bewildered men, Ireland had
too long been treated by England with injustice to be able at once
to understand that this time she was being dealt with fairly. The
concessions, it was true, were there; but they had been extorted from
England in the hour of her extremity, and there was no guarantee
that she would not, at some future time, recall them. England, it
was said, was taking advantage of the "generous credulity" of Irish-
men. Simple repeal was insufficient ; England must be called upon to
renounce expressly her claim to legislate for Ireland. Grattan pooh-
poohed the suggestion and asked ironically, what guarantee an express
1782-3] Renunciation agitation-Parliamentary Reform. 501
renunciation could afford? But he had lost the ear of the nation. The
agitation grew from day to day; it was taken up by Flood; the Lawyers'
Volunteer Corps declared in its favoiu*; the culpable negligence shown
in drafting two trade Bills wherein Ireland was tacitly included, the
utterances of irresponsible politicians in England, and a decision given
in the Court of King's Bench on an appeal from Ireland, furnished
apparent proof of its necessity. In the midst of the controversy the
Marquis of Rockingham died. His death led to a reconstruction of the
Ministry under Shelbume, and in September Temple succeeded Portland
as Lord Lieutenant. Though inclined at first to resent the clamour for
Renunciation, the new Ministry acted with due regard to public faith,
and at the earliest opportunity a Bill was passed to remove all doubts
which had arisen or might arise as to the exclusive rights of the Parlia-
ment and Courts of Ireland in matters of legislation and judicature.
Ireland had obtained from England the acknowledgment of her
legislative independence. The importance of the victory was exaggerated
in both countries. To be sure, the English Parliament could no
longer directly interfere in the affairs of Ireland ; but her counsels were
still controlled by English Ministers, wholly irresponsible to the Irish
Parliament, and it was inevitable that whenever the interests of the Irish
people clashed with the views of English Ministers, these should be
tempted to have recourse to corruption, in order to tune Parliament to
their pleasure. The only guarantee for the independence of Parliament
was a reform of Parliament itself. This everybody in Ireland admitted.
But how was it to be effected ? No doubt, Ireland owed much to the
Volunteers, and the Volunteers were in favour of Reform. But the
feeling of annoyance at the political influence exercised by them was not
confined to the corrupt element in the House of Commons, whose
existence Reform menaced. There were many independent members, who
agreed with Grattan that, having given a Parliament to the people, it
was the duty of the Volunteers to retire and leave the people to Parlia-
ment. But it was Flood, the author of the Renimciation agitation, and
not Grattan, who had the ear of the nation, and with Flood went
Charlemont and that eccentric ornament of the Irish Church, Frederick
Augustus Hervey, Earl of Bristol and Bishop of Derry. During the
summer of 1783 resolutions in favour of Reform became of frequent
occurrence, and at a general assembly of the Ulster Volunteers at
Dungannon in September, it was resolved to issue invitations to the
other provinces to join with them in sending delegates to a national
convention to be held at Dublin on November 10 to discuss the question.
Meanwhile, the government of Lord Shelbume had given way to the
Coalition Ministry of the Duke of Portland, with North and Fox as joint
Secretaries of State, and in June Lord Northington arrived in Dublin as
Temple's successor. Parliament was dissolved shortly afterwards and
a new one met on October 14. The general election had caused little
602 Beforvi Bill rejected: — Protection demanded. [i783-4
alteration in its complexioii, though it was said that a third of the open
constituencies had found fresh representatives. The question of parlia-
mentary reform had not been mooted when the Volunteer Convention
met at Dublin on November 10. It was a thorny subject, and even in
the Convention it seemed at first as if no satisfactory solution of the
question would be arrived at. Finally, however, a plan was resolved
upon, which, while preserving to Parliament its character as a Protestant
assembly, would, by raising the franchise qualification, opening close
boroughs, incapacitating holders of pensions from sitting in Parliament,
compelling members, who accepted office, to seek reelection, and rendering
bribery at elections a disqualification, have gone far to remove the most
glaring abuses in the representation. Both Charleraoht and the Bishop
of Derry thought it unadvisable to present the measure to Parliament
until the Convention dissolved and the general feeling of the country
had been tested. But Flood would admit of no delay, and on the same
day (November 29) he moved from his seat in the House of Commons for
leave to bring in a Bill for the more equal representation of the people
in Parliament. The Attorney-General, Yelverton, immediately rose to
oppose the motion, on the ground that it was an attempt on the part of
the Volunteers to overawe Parliament. This was the general line of
argument; and, after a heated controversy, the motion was rejected by an
overwhelming majority. Grattan, it is true, both spoke and voted in
its favour; but his speech, as Northington rightly interpreted it, was
not intended to hurt the Government. It is easy to find excuses for him ;
but his conduct at this critical moment, though personal motives account
for it, can never be sufficiently deplored. With singular self-restraint,
the Convention manifested no resentment at the brusque rejection of its
proposals, and, after passing a loyal address to his Majesty, it quietly
dissolved itself, on December 2.
From this moment, public interest in the subject began visibly to
decline, and, though resolutions in favour of Reform still continued to be
passed at Volunteer meetings, the consideration of questions more nearly
affecting the material welfare of the country gradually forced it into the
background of politics. Despite the commercial concessions of 1779, the
trade of Ireland continued to languish. There were several reasons for
this, due partly to the incapacity of Irish manufacturers, chiefly from
lack of capital, to take full advantage of the colonial trade opened to
them, but mainly to the prohibitive duties placed by England on all
goods, except provisions and plain linens, imported from Ireland. Un-
able to participate in the English market, Irish manufacturers found it
difficult to hold their own even in Ireland, owing to the merely nominal
duties placed on English imports. Competition, it was insisted, was
impossible unless they were provided with some sort of protection.
There was a good deal of reason in the argument; and, early in 1784, the
matter was brought before Parliament by Luke Gardiner. The distress
1784-5] Corn Laws.-Pitfs project of a Commercial Union. 503
prevailing among the manufacturers of the metropolis was, he said, too
well known to members to require special proof. But the distress was
not confined to Dublin. It extended to every manufacturing town and
to every industry in the kingdom. The only remedy was the imposition
of a light duty on imports, just sufficient to place Irish manufacturers
on a level with their English competitors. The House, however, was
unwilling to give any cause of offence to England and rejected the
proposal. Gardiner, it was said, had mistaken the causes of the distress
which were to be found rather in an inadequate supply of bread-stuffs
than in industrial depression. To remedy this evil, the new Attorney-
General, John Foster, gave notice of his intention to introduce a Bill to
regulate the corn trade and to promote agriculture. The Bill (which
provided for a system of bounties) passed rapidly through Parliament, and
received the royal assent on May 14. It is Said that Foster's Com Laws
altered the entire face of Ireland, and turned her from a purely grazing
and corn-importing country into an agricultural and corn-producing land.
It would be more correct to say that they enabled her to take advantage
of the economic situation created by the extraordinary development, at
this time, of England as a manufacturing country, and thus indirectly led
to that result. But the effect of the Corn Laws was not immediate.
Distress continued unabated, and the indignation at the rejection of
the demand for Protection found vent in serious riots and the revival
of non-importation agreements.
The Lord Lieutenant, the Duke of Rutland, who had succeeded
Northington, when Pitt came into office on the downfall of the Coalition
Ministry in December, 1783, proposed to adopt severe measures of
repression. But Pitt, while agreeing that disorder ought to be checked
with a firm hand, was anxious to treat Ireland with consideration. The
recent constitutional changes had, in his opinion, undoubtedly weakened
the connexion between the two countries. Perhaps a union would have
been a better solution. But Ireland had preferred independence, and the
account was closed. All the same, it was clear that her new acquisitions
had not satisfied her. The demand for Protection, backed up by non-
importation agreements, might be repressed for a time ; but, sooner or
later, it was bound to make itself heard. Could not the concession of
the Channel Trade be made the basis of a commercial union? Pitt
studied the problem long and seriously. On February 7, 1785, the Irish
Secretary, Thomas Orde, submitted a plan calculated to put Ireland on
the same commercial footing as England, on condition that, whenever
the hereditary revenue in Ireland exceeded a sum which remained to be
fixed, the surplus should be appropriated towards the support of the
naval forces of the Empire. It was a large and statesmanlike plan, and
its acceptance would, as Pitt himself said, have made " England and
Ireland one country in effect, though for local concerns vmder distinct
legislatures — one in the communication of advantages, and of course in
504 Commercial proposals dropped. — Tithes. [i 785-6
the participation of burdens." But the condition stuck in the throat of
the Irish Parliament. Experience had taught Irishmen how unwise it
was to trust ministers with the public purse. The hereditary revenue
amounted to ieeS^jOOO and it was steadily rising. It was proposed to
amend the proposition by making the contribution contingent upon the
establishment of a balance between revenue and expenditure in time of
peace at ,£656,000. The amendment, much to Pitt's annoyance, when
he heard of it, was accepted by Orde, and, in gratitude for the liberal
treatment of Ireland, the Commons at once created a substantial surplus
by voting new taxes to the amount of ^"140,000. On February 22,
Pitt submitted the proposals to the English House of Commons, The
whole mercantile influence of Lancashire and Yorkshire was thrown
into the scale against them. Fox seized on the alteration made in them
by the Irish Parliament, to prove that Ireland was being made the
arbiter of English commercial interests. They were withdrawn, revised,
and again submitted to the House on May 12. From eleven reso-
lutions they had grown to twenty. Some of these affected patents,
copyright in books, the rights of fishing, and the like ; but they were
mainly intended to meet the objection raised by Fox. To avoid the
very hypothetical danger of Ireland becoming " the emporium of trade,"
an obligation was placed on the Irish Parliament to adopt, without
delay or modification, all the navigation laws then in force in England,
or that might be afterwards made by the British Parliament. With a
tergiversation reflecting great discredit on him, Fox denounced the
clause as an insidious attack on the Irish Constitution. He could not
prevent the acceptance of the resolutions in England ; but his words
awakened the' jealous fears of the Irish Parliament. A motion for leave
to bring in a Bill based on them only escaped rejection by nineteen votes,
and it was thereupon dropped. The news of its abandonment was hailed
with general satisfaction, and that night Dublin was illuminated. It
would, perhaps, have been better if the commercial treaty had never
been proposed; but its rejection in the circumstances was most deplorable.
The measure was one which, as Pitt admitted, sat very near his heart.
Its withdrawal was regarded in Ireland as a great constitutional victory.
Perhaps both sides overestimated its importance. But in linking the
fortunes of Ireland to those of the Whig party in England Grattan and
his friends made a great mistake. No one of course could see that
the future was to belong to Pitt and not to Fox. At the time
Fox' factiousness was regarded as patriotism and Pitt's statesmanship
misrepresented as treachery. It was a misunderstanding fatal in its
consequences for Ireland.
Meanwhile, the effect of Foster's Com Laws was beginning to be felt
in the increased prosperity of the country. There was still, however,
considerable distress ; and in 1786 there was a fresh outburst of agrarian
crime in Mimster. The cause of the disturbances was admitted to be the
tithes. It was confessed that, so far from being able to pay them, the
1787-9] King's illness. — Begency question. — Conclusion. 605
peasantry could find neither food nor clothing for themselves; but it
was in vain that Grattan pleaded for remedial measures, which should
ease the peasant and at the same time satisfy the clergy. Parliament
refused to countenance what it regarded as an attack on private property,
and armed Government with exceptional powers for the restoration of
order. On the whole, however, as the Irish Chancellor, Lord LifFord,
wrote, in August, 1788, to the Marquis of Buckingham (Earl Temple),
who had been reappointed Viceroy on the death, in October, 1787, of
the Duke of Rutland, the country had, in his long experience, never
been quieter. But, even as he wrote, disquieting rumours arrived of
the terrible misfortune that had befallen the King. By the beginning
of November it was impossible to doubt the fact of his insanity. The
situation created was unprecedented ; but, as everybody agreed that a
Regent would have to be appointed and that the only person who
could be so appointed was the Prince of Wales, there seemed little room
for a crisis. Unfortunately, the Prince's appointment meant a change of
Ministry ; this was the one fact that possessed any real interest ; and
for Ireland it was the all-important fact. If Fox succeeded to power,
the young Constitution would be secured a free development, and the
balance of power would be definitely shifted to the side of the Opposi-
tion. This was the opinion of Grattan and those who acted with him.
That their calculations were well based, was evident from the practical
unanimity with which the proposal to address the Prince of Wales to
take upon himself the government of the kingdom during his Majesty's
incapacity, was received in both Irish Houses. As Fitzgibbon ironically
remarked, aU the hangers-on of office had gone over to pay their
devotions to the rising sun. On February 19, 1789, both Houses waited
on the Lord Lieutenant to request him to transmit the Address. He
refused point-blank. Whether he acted constitutionally may be doubted;
but his refusal brought into prominence the weak point in the Irish
Constitution, viz. the inability of Parliament to control the Adminis-
tration. The difficulty was surmounted by the nomination of a
Parliamentary Commission to present the Address personally. But, by
the time the Commissioners reached London, the King had recovered
his health. His recovery sealed the fate of the Irish Parliament.
Pensioners and placemen, scenting danger, drifted back to their allegiance.
To make it easier for them Government held out an amnesty to all who
repented. Those who were too proud or too independent to accept it,
were dismissed. Corruption once more became the order of the day.
The end did not come immediately. The Irish Parliament had still ten
years of sickly existence before it. But, even in 1789, the Union was a
foregone conclusion. The boasted independence of the Irish Parliament
had proved a sham. Its corruption was past dispute. It had refused to
reform itself when the opportunity offered, and it was itself mainly
responsible for its own fate.
606
CHAPTER XV.
INDIA.
(1) THE MOGHUL EMPIRE.
The points of connexion between the histories of Europe and Asia,
and the reciprocal influence, moral and material, exercised from time to
time upon each other by the two continents, would provide an attractive
subject of enquiry, It might begin with the A,siatic conquests of
Alexander the Great, who founded an Eastern empire which, under
his successors, spread Hellenic ideas and institutions throughout all the
regions that had been subject to the great Iranian monarchy, from the
Mediterranean beyond the Euphrates almost up to the confines of India.
The changes that followed his campaigns were wide and lasting. For,
although Alexander's empire was reft asimder by partition among his
successors, yet the Macedonian Greeks seem to have long maintained
their general ascendancy as a ruling race, held together by the ties of
common nationality, political interest, and intellectual superiority, in
the midst of a vast indigenous population. When the Romans took
over from the Asiatic Greeks the dominion over the lands west of the
Euphrates, their strong, organised administration enforced order and
restrained barbarism , for several centuries, and cleared the gi'ound
for planting Christianity. In the seventh century ensued an event
of supreme historical importance, the rise of the Mohammadan Faith;
and in the long conflict bet>veen Islam and Christianity the Greek
empire at Constantinople wag gradually dismembered ; until the
final triumph of the Osm,anli Sultans swept out of western Asia both
Christianity and civilisation. From the middle of the fourteenth cen-
tury may be dated the extinction of all European dominion in Asia,
puring the next century the Asiatic continent was slowly recovering
from the devastations of the Mongol hprdes under Tamerlane, who had
dispersed armies, broken up kingdoms, and uprooted all political land-
marks from the Chinese Wall to the Hellespont. The records of that
age contain little more than the rise and fall of ephemeral rulerships,
alternately won and lost in the strife among fierce tribjal confederacies ;
East and West in the sixteenth century. 607
but towards the close of the fifteenth century this confusion abates ; and
the period which follows, so far as it relates to India, is the subject of
this section.
Erskine, in the introductory chapter of his History of the Moghul
Empire under the two first Emperors, Bdbar and Humdyun, takes the
beginning of the sixteenth century as the era in which the kingdoms of
Europe began to settle down into their permanent form of great compact
States, absorbing the minor principalities and feudatories imder their
absolute sovereignty. Something of the same kind, he observes, hap-
pened at the same period, though to a different extent, in Asia, where
the incoherent rulerships and minor States were largely obliterated and
superseded by strong centralised monarchies. In a broad and general
way the parallel drawn by Erskine is correct. Early in the sixteenth
century the Osmanli Sultans at Constantinople were uniting under their
authority Syria, Egypt, in fact all the Asiatic provinces of the Roman
Empire ; and by the middle of that century their despotism was at its
climax of power and expansion. At the same epoch Persia became
consolidated imder the able dynasty of the Safevi Kings ; and India fell
under the sway of the Moghuls. And it is important to remark, further-
more, that this simultaneous rise of powerful military States in both
continents produced interacting effects and consequences that may be
clearly traced in the history of the period ; for at no other time, perhaps,
was the political situation in Europe more directly influenced by events
in Asia. The collisions of rival monarchies, in the process of enlarging
their realms and planting their dynasties, were felt in reverberation across
the world from west to east. Throughout the long contest, in the sixteenth
century, between France and the Empire of Charles V, the Franco-Turkish
alliance weighed heavily in the scale against the House of Habsburg ; it
placed the Empire between an enemy on either flank. On the other
hand the desolating invasions of Hungary by Suleiman the Great were
checked by his Persian wars, which drew off and divided the Turkish
armies ; and towards the end of his reign the Sultan was so involved in
hostilities against Shah Tamasp that he was compelled to make peace
with the Emperor Ferdinand I; a diversion which probably saved eastern
Europe from dire calamities, since the Imperial forces were no match for
the Turk. In one of his letters from Constantinople, Busbecq, Ferdi-
nand's ambassador, compares the patience, temperance, and fighting
qualities of the Turkish soldiers with the licence and loose discipline
of the Christian troops ; and he declares that the result of a meeting
between two such armies cannot be doubtful. " The only obstacle," he
adds, " is Persia, whose position on his rear forces the invader to take
precautions. The fear of Persia gives us a respite, but it is only for a
time." At the same time, moreover, the consolidation of a powerful
State under the Safevi dynasty had an important bearing upon the
course of Asiatic as well as of European affairs. For, while on the west
608 The Mohammadan dynasties in India. [i460-i625
Persia was strong enough to embarrass the Osmanli Sultans; on the
north-east the first Safevi King had been cooperating with Bdbar, the
future conqueror of India, against their common enemy, the Usbegs^
had assisted him with an army to subdue the countries along the Oxus,
and had made it possible for him to fix himself so firmly in Afghanistan,
that he could eventually descend upon India. And indeed the first
three Moghul Emperors were considerably indebted for the security
of their north-western frontier beyond Afghanistan to their friendly
relations with the Persian rulers, who were so constantly engaged in
hostilities with the Turkish Sultans on their western side that they
were very willing te avoid trouble in the regions between Persia and
India.
From the eleventh century the whole region of upper India had been
conquered by successive Mohammadan invaders, who descended through
the moimtain passes from central Asia to carve out their kingdoms on
the rich plains below ; and throughout the fifteenth century rival dynas-
ties, in perpetual strife with each other, had fixed their headquarters in
diflerent parts of the country. In the north and west the territory had
been parcelled out among the tribal chiefs from Afghanistan owing
nominal allegiance to the Emperors at Delhi ; until, about 1450, Sultan
Behlol, of the Lodi clan, who had been raised to the throne By a powerful
confederacy, imposed energetically his supremacy over the lesser Princes^
and founded his dynasty. But early in the sixteenth centiu:y this king-
dom was again threatened with disruption. "ITie Afghan feudatories
were hard to keep in subordination; and under the weak rule of
Sultan Ibrahim Lodi they were falling into rebellion, conspiring and
intriguing at home and abroad, and throwing off their allegiance to
the Delhi sovereignty. Four considerable Mohammadan kingdoms had
become independent in the west and south ; while in central India the
Hindu chiefs of the Rajput clans were gathering strength from the
dissensions among the Mohammadan leaders, the enemies of their race and
religion. None of these principalities, except the Rajput chiefships, had
any root in the land or natural stability ; though the Lodi Sultan still
maintained predominance by a numerous army and the possession of
ample revenues. The general condition of the country and of its
government, distracted by internal commotions and the alarms of civil
war, undoubtedly pointed towards impending changes, and offered a
favourable opportunity for another foreign invasion,
Zahirruddin Mahmud Bdbar was by descent a E[han of the Chagatdis,
a clan which took its name from the son of the famous Mongolian con-
queror Chingis IChan. Although in Bd,bar's day the word " Moghul "
denoted a separate and hostile clan, it nevertheless became affixed by
common use to the northern tribesmen whom he led into India, and to
the dynasty that he founded there. He was born in 1483, the hereditary
1504-25] Bdbar's expeditions. 609
chief of Ferghana, a petty principality beyond the Oxus, After fighting
from his earliest youth to maintain his birthright, he was compelled to
abandon it in 1504, when he turned his arms against Afghanistan ; and
in the course of the next seven years he contended indefatigably against
many vicissitudes of fortune, until, by the aid of the Persian King, he
established himself at Kabul, where he became engaged in long and
indecisive contests with the unruly Afghan tribes. Between 1514 and
1523 he made four expeditions into India, upon the pretext of his right
to the throne by descent from Tamerlane; he laid hold, more or less
firmly, of the upper Punjab, and placed a garrison at Lahore. But his
fourth incursion had been disconcerted by a tribal outbreak in the
mountains behind him, which convinced him that no plans of perma-
nently conquering India could succeed without a solid base of operations
in Afghanistan ; so for the next two years he put all his strength into
the work of reducing Kandahar and the country adjacent, and of
repelling an inroad made by the Usbegs from the north.
When the highlands had been pacified and effectually overawed,
Bdbar set out in 1525 upon his fifth and decisive expedition into India.
On his march he was joined by several Afghan nobles, malcontents and
refugees from the Lodi Government, who brought over to his side their
troops and local support; and with their reinforcements he advanced
against the far more numerous army of Sultan Ibrahim, who was en-
camped at Pdniput. There, after a fierce encounter, he won a complete
victory. The Sultan was killed on the field; BAbar seized Delhi and
distributed the imperial treasury as prize-money to his followers; he
pushed on to Agra; and the capture of these two great cities gave him
possession of all the broad and fertile plains lying between and along the
upper streams of the Ganges and Jumna. The provinces east of the
Ganges made some resistance, which was soon overcome; but in the west,
beyond the Jumna river, a formidable confederacy was gathering against
him. The famous Rdna Sanga of Oodipur had mustered all the fight-
ing force of the Rajput clans and was marching upon Agra with strong
contingents from some of the leading Afghan nobles, who had by this
time perceived that a Moghul Emperor, firmly seated on the Delhi
throne, would speedily make an end of their local independence. Bdbar
set out from Agra to meet his antagonist near Bidna, where he threw
up entrenchments. Both the Hindu and Mohammadan commanders
of the two armies were skilful and daring soldiers, well trained by
long experience of war. Bdbar's north-countrymen had been dis-
heartened, like Alexander's Macedonians, by the Indian climate; and
his captains were daunted by the multitude of the enemy ; they pressed
him to retreat, and it was only by entreaty and exhortation that they
were persuaded to stake their fortunes upon another pitched battle.
The Rajput strength lay almost entirely in cavalry; they made a furious
onslaught upon Bdbar's position ; but they suffered heavily from his
OH. XV.
610 The Moghid empire fbimded. [1525-37
artillery, and when their charges slackened he threw his horsemen upon
either flank, making a simultaneous advance against their centre, which
broke up the Kajput army into irreparable confusion. Although they
still fought desperately, they were thoroughly beaten. Some of the
principal Rajput chiefs were slain; B.dna Sanga, who escaped in the
rout, died within a year; the broken clans fell back into their own
country; and BAbar's victory, which extinguished all serious danger to
his dominion, left him free to extend and confirm it in two or three
successful campaigns during the few remaining years of his life. When
he died, in 1530, his authority was supreme over almost the whole of the
wide Indian plains from the Indus to the confines of Bengal — the region
which has always been the seat of empire ; while his son Humdyun held
Afghanistan for him with the help of the Persians. Bdbar's courage,
perseverance, and indefatigable activity of mind and body, his adventur-
ous and triumphant career, rank him among the foremost of those men,
famous in the history of nations at this period, who created or completed
Asiatic monarchies quite as splendid and powerful as any of the con-
temporary sovereignties in Europe. No other authentic autobiography
has been written by an Orientar prince like the vivacious narrative in
which Bdbar has described his own habits and character, with the events
of an adventurous life extending over not more than forty-eight years.
But the foundations of the new dominion were still unsettled ; and
the reign of Humd.yun, the second Emperor, was speedily interrupted by
revolts and grave misfortunes. Just as in Europe disputed successions
were constantly kindling great wars, so, throughout the period of the
Moghul empire, each Emperor, on his succession, had to fight for
his throne. Primogeniture carried an acknowledged right of little
use to those who were incapable of enforcing it ; for in practice the
demise of the Crown was determined by the ordeal of battle ; and one
potent cause of the strength and stability of the Moghul dynasty was
that for more than a century the imperial title passed in this manner to
the ablest representative of the family. Humdyun's succession was at
once challenged by his brother, Kdmrdn, who advanced from Kabxil and
occupied the Punjab; and insurrections broke out in the eastern and
southern provinces. The Emperor took the field with promptitude and
vigour; but these simultaneous outbreaks diverted his forces and dis-
concerted his strategy. The heirs of the Lodi kingdom, which Bdbar
had destroyed, rallied their partisans among the Afghan nobles, the
most formidable of whom was Sher Shah, an Afghan chief of real
military genius, who had taken up arms on the south-east. Against
these rebels Humdyun marched; but while he was engaged with them
the independent King of Guzerat, Bahddur, began hostilities in the west;
and, although Bahddur was defeated by the imperial aiiny, he renewed
the war later and carried it on until he died in 1537. Mea;nwhile Sher
Shah, with whom the Emperor had at first contrived to make terms, had
1539-56] Reverses at restoroMon of the Emperof^ Humdyun. 611
collected his forces, and was now advancing from Bengal upon Agra.
Humdyun led out an army to meet him; but on the banks of the Ganges
he suffered a crushing defeat (June, 1689), which completely ruined his
cause. He fled northward into the Punjab, making vain attempts to
rally adherents; while Sher Shah, who had now proclaimed himself
Emperor, followed in pursuit, capturing both Humdyun's capitals^
Agra and Delhi, until, finding the Punjab untenable, he took refuge in
Afghanistan with his brother KAmrin, who at first joined forces with
him, but subsequently deserted him. After wandering through Sinde
and Beluchistan, the Emperor ended his flight in exile at the Court of
the Persian King. Shah Tamasp, although his behaviour towards the
fugitive Emperor was at first cold and haughty, eventually agreed to
assist him with troops to recover the Afghan fortresses, on condition
that Kandahar should be made over to Persia. So, in 1545, Humdyun
crossed the border again into Afghanistan, where his brother Kdmrdn,
who was ruling there independently, was by no means inclined to make
way for him. Many partisans joined his standard ; he seized Kandahar,
and occupied Kabul ; but for the next ten years he was entangled in long
and hard campaigns, thwarted by revolts, conspiracies, reverses, and all
the complications of a war in which the tribal chiefs had no scruple
about changing sides ; until finally he beat down resistance of every
kind, destroyed KAmrdn's party and drove him out of the country.
Having thus reconquered the whole of Afghanistan and Kashmir, he
prepared to descend upon India, where Sher Shah and his heirs had been
reigning in his stead.
The moment was favourable for his enterprise. Sher Shah had been
killed at the siege of Kalinjar in 1545 ; the rulership had fallen into
feeble hands; and four rivals were competing for it. The whole kingdom
was distracted by civil war and intestine confusion ; the frontier garrisons
had been withdrawn to take part in the contest for supremacy at the
capital. Humdyun swept the upper Punjab clear of enemies, with little
resistance from the disorganised and divided forces of the Afghan
Sultans ; he marched straight upon Delhi, dispersed an army that offered
battle at Sirhind, occupied the capital, and replaced himself upon the
imperial throne, after fourteen years of strenuous contention against
hardship and adversity. Some desultory fighting ensued in the lower
provinces ; but Humdyun had securely established his authority when he
died, from an accidental fall, within six months after his triumphant
restoration.
To his son, Akbar Shah, who was thirteen years old at his father's
death, Humdyun bequeathed an unfinished conquest, and a dominion
which hardly extended beyond the Punjab and the districts round Delhi
and Agra. In India, and even in Afghanistan, the Moghul power still
represented little more than another successful invasion of Tartar hordes
from beyond the Oxus ; it had struck no roots into either countiy .;
612 Akbar's accession and successes. [1555-95
it was encompassed by rivals and insurgents; The preservation of
Akbar's throne during his minority was due to the energy, in war and
administration, of Bairam Khan, Humd,yun's best general, who took
charge of the government at Delhi, put down a serious rising in the
Kabul highlands, and forced the adherents of the old reigning Afghan
family in India to lay down their arms. When, however, Akbar
assumed, in his eighteenth year, the supreme authority, he found means
of ridding himself with politic ingratitude of a Minister who was
inconveniently powerful and popular. The young Emperor lost no time
in proving his eminent capacity. He struck right and left at rebels and
enemies ; he defeated the Afghan chiefs who had declared against him in
the eastern pi-ovinces ; he repelled an inroad led into the Punjab by his
brother Mirza Hakim ; and, having rapidly suppressed all opposition to his
internal authority, he proceeded to organise his government and to push
forward the boundaries of his empire; During the next twelve years
the strongholds of the Rajput clans in central India were taken and
garrisoned, and their chiefs brought under allegiance to his sovereignty.
In western India Guzerat and Sinde were annexed ; and the rich
province of Bengal submitted after some tedious and troublesome
campaigns. In the far north Kashmir was regained for the empire;
and in 1582, when his brother Hakim again broke into the Punjab from
Afghanistan, Akbar fell upon him with an army, drove him back and
followed him into the mountains, pursued him to Kabul and restored
the imperial jurisdiction over this most important frontier province. It
is true that the unruly Afghan tribes were never completely pacified ;
but, so long as the important fortresses and the lines of communication
were held by Moghul governors, they attempted no further control ;
and the recapture of Kandahar from the Persians in 1594 gave them
sufficient mastery over the whole country. The death of Shah Tamasp
had been followed by internal commotions in Persia, which removed
for some time any fear of reprisals from that quarter ; and the historian
Ferishta remarks that Akbar's military dispositions " had raised a wall
of disciplined valour " against enemies in the north.
It was not until he had thoroughly pacified upper India, over-
powei'ed the Rajput chiefs, and secured his position in Afghanistan,
that Akbar, toward the close of his reign, undertook the subjugation
of the independent kingdoms in the south. In 1586 his armies had
invaded, with partial success, the region commonly called the Dekhan^
which may be loosely described as extending from below the Vindhya
range of hills as far southward as the Tungabhadra river. Some of the
territory in the northern part of this region had been annexed ; but the
kingdom of Ahmednagar resisted effectually. In 1595, when fierce
disputes broke out among claimants to the rulership, the imperial troops
again attacked Ahmednagar, and were repulsed by the Queen Regent,
Chdnd Bibi, a princess whose high spirit and romantic intrepidity are
1594-1605] Akbar at the height of his power. 513
famous in Indian tradition. But in 1599 the city was besieged by
superior forces under Prince Murdd, Akbar's son; and the kingdom
became a dependency of the empire.
The realm of Akbar, at its full expansion, may be said to have had
its north-western frontier on the Oxus and the confines of Persia, and to
have included all upper and central India down to the Bay of Bengal
on the south-east. To the south his sovereignty had shifting and
ill-defined limits, for which the Godavery river may be taken as an
approximate demarcation. Yet the tribes in Afghanistan had never
been thoroughly tamed, while in southern India the principalities
outside his jurisdiction were restless and hostile; so that at each
extremity the Moghul empire was exposed to revolt or attack. This,
however, is the normal situation of Asiatic rulerships, which have no
fixed delimitation, and whose territories are continually expanding or
contracting as the balance of their respective mihtary power rises or
falls. •
Nevertheless, when Akbar died in 1605, after a reign that synchronises
closely with the reign of the English Queen Elizabeth, he transmitted to
his successor the best-ordered and richest empire of that time in Asia,
divided and subdivided throughout into provinces and districts, with the
rent-roll of each division carefully estimated and recorded, under minute
regulations, for assessment of the land-tax. His revenue system was
based upon a detailed measurement of the culturable area, an investiga^
tion of the average produce, and a limitation of the proportion to be
demanded, in cash instead of in kind, by the State. The rent calculated
upon these data was fixed for ten years. It is not to be supposed that
this system was actually enforced in all the outlying tracts, or that the
measurements were actually carried out everywhere. Yet, although
Akbar's reforms feU into neglect during the wars and disorders of the
later Emperors, his great administrative principle — that an equitable
adjustment of the land revenue is the basis of good government in India —
has been maintained as the ground-plan of aU subsequent settlements
between the State and the landowners or tenants up to the present day.
The fortunes of every hereditary dynasty, at critical epochs, depend
on the chance of its producing a representative fitted to cope with the
needs and emergencies of his time. The Emperor Akbar happened to
be endowed with a remarkable combination of the qualities required by
the situation of the Moghul empire at the moment when he came to the
throne. He united high military ability with political genius ; he could
lead expeditions and suppress internal rebellion with skill and resolution ;
he understood the art of ruling ; and his wise government quieted the
people whom he subjected to his arms. The territories which he con-
quered were never lost again by him; they fell away through the
inisrule of his successors. He attached the Rajput chiefs to his family
by matrimonial alliances ; he strove to win' the confidence of all classes
C. M. H. VI. CH. XV. 33
614 Beligious policy of Alcbar. [1594-1605
of his subjects by tolerance and conciliation ; he aimed at softening
religious antipathies by the humanising influence of intellectual culture.
He had been a man of war from his youth upward, overburdened with
the affairs of a vast dominion ; yet in his later years he became pro-
fo'undly interested in theologibd.' speculation ; his mind was powerfully
drawn toward the abstruse philosophies of Brahmanism. The atmo-
sphere of India, which has a decomposing eflFect on all positive creeds,
fostered Akbar's innate propensity toward sceptical ideas, whidh carried
him far above the easy indifiference that is a marked feature in the
general character of the Moghul Emperors befote Aurungzeb. None of
them were fanatics ; they were better trained in arms than in articles of
faith; they were foreigners ruling over an immense population, among
whom the Hindu unbelievers far outnumbered the Mohammadans.
The Emperor Bdbar's memoirs show him to have been a jovial free-
liver, who noted with a contrite heart his frequent wine-parties ; and an
anecdote told of his son Humdyun proves him to have been no austere
Islamite. As this Emperor' was riding with his brother they saw a dog
defiling a Mohammadan tomb, whereupon the brother* made the pious
observation that the man buried there had been a notorious heretic.
" Yes," replied Humdyun, " and the beast of a dog represents orthodoxy."
It may be remarked, generally, that the Mongolian or Turkish races
have bred mighty conquerors, and have founded dynasties that are still
ruling from Constantinople to Pekin ; but that none of the great
prophets or propagators of spiritual ideas has arisen from among
them. Akbar stands alone among all their :great temporal rulers as a
philosophic autocrat, absorbed in formulating the doctrines of a new
eclectic religion. He instituted a kind of metaphysical society, over
which he presided in person, and in which he delighted in pitting against
each other Persian mystics,, Hindu pantheists, Christian missionaries,
and orthodox Mohammadans. He even assumed by public edict- the
spiritual headship of his empire, and declared himself the first appellate
judge of ecclesiastical questions. " Any opposition," said the edict, " on
the part of subjects to such orders passed by His Majesty shall involve
damnation in the world to come, and loss of religion and property in
this life." The liturgy of the Divine Faith, as it was named, was a sort
of Iranian sun-worship, embodying eclectic. doctrines and the principle
of universal tolerance. We may be reminded that the Roman Emperor
Julian adopted, like Akbar^ the sun as the image of all-pervading
divinity ; and that he also asserted supreme pofttifical authority.i In
each instance the new theosophy disappeared at the death of its
promulgator; for great religious revolutions are never inaugurated by
temporal authority, but invariably begin among the people. Nothing,
however, could demonstrate more clearly .the strength of, Akbar's
government than the fact that he could take upon himself, spiritual
supremacy,, and proclaim with impunity doctrines that subverted. the
ieo5-2i] Wars of Jeh(higir in south-western India. 516
fundamental law and the primary teaching of Islam. In no other
Mohammadan kingdom could the sovereign have attempted such an
enterprise without imminent peril to his throne. Akbar's political
object was to provide some common ground upon which Hindus and-
Mohammadans might be brought nearer toward religious unity ; though
it is hardly necessary to add that no such mod/us vivendi has at any time
been discovered.
The pinident and powerful government of Akbar had left the
empire, at his decease, in complete internal tranquillity, with the
exception of some temporary disturbances in Bengal. And as Prince
Selim, who took the title of Jehdngir on his: accession, was the only
surviving son, he had to contend against no serious opposition ; for his
own son Khusru, who raised a futile rebellion in the Punjab, was easily
defeated and cast into prison. But in south-west India, which had
never submitted patiently to the overlordship of the Moghuls, the
inevitable troubles, recurrent during the whole period of their dynasty,
soon began again. The kingdom of Ahmednagar, which Akbar had
reduced to vassalship, was now entirely in the hands of the Abyssinian,
MAlik Ambar, a Minister who had usurped all power, and whose fame
as a soldier and statesman is still remembered. He founded a new.
capital at Aurungabad, and so effectively repulsed an army sent against
him by the Emperor that he was left for some years unmolested. In
1617, however, when Mdlik Ambar's position had been weakened by the
jealousy of rival factions. Prince Kharram (the future Emperor Shah
Jehdn) attacked him in great force, recovered some fortresses, and
reduced him to submission ; yet although' Mdlik Ambar was again
defeated in 1621, he was never finally overcome or dispossessed. It was
in the time when these and other complications had brought Jehdngir
into central India that Sir Thomas Roe, the ambassador sent by James I
to the Moghul Government, travelled up from Bombay to join the
Emperor at Ajmir. His letters give a description of the country's
condition, of the imperial Court and camp, and generally of the
arbitrary ill-regulated administration, that throws much light on the
actual state of India under this reign. The highways were most
insecure for traffic or travel, though robbers and rebels were speedily
executed when caught ; and in outlying districts the central authority
was little regarded by local chiefs or leaders of banditti. Nevertheless it
was an empire of great wealth and might, maintaining a large army
of various races from the revenues yielded by a vast territory. Sir
Thomas Roe, who had free intercourse with some of the principal
officials, writes that "in revenue the Moghul doubtless exceeds either
Turk, Persian, or any Eastern prince; the sums I dare not name."
Thomas Coryate, who had travelled from Constantinople to India,
and was at Ajmir with Roe, compares Jeh^ngir's annual income with
that of the Osmanli Sultan, and says that it was far greater; while
CH. XV. g3_2
516 Camp and Court of Jehdngir. [leii-e
Captain Richard Hawkins, who had been high in the imperial service,
has given a detailed account of the immense quantity of gold and silver
coin stored up in the treasury. The opulence and rude splendour of the
Court, its superb ceremonial, the crowd of officials, the ambassadors from
Persia, " Tartary," and all the minor States, independent or tributary,
of India, the profusion of jewellery and gorgeous apparel, astonished
these Englishmen; they contrast this outward grandeur with the barbarous
methods of government — " an hundred naked men left slain in the fields
for robbery," when the camp was shifted — they remark the mixture of
greed and capricious generosity in Jehdngir's dealings with the people.
Sir Thomas Roe, who followed the Emperor's march out of Ajmir with
his army and his retinue of nobles and functionaries, declares that the
camp, when it was pitched, had a circuit of little less than twenty
English miles. This included long rows of shops for the supply of the
commissariat and traffic of all kinds, with a miscellaneous horde of
camp-followers and hangers-on ; and, to Roe's wonder, the whole city of
tents had been set up, he asserts, in four hours. In the midst of all the
pride and pomp of his court Jehangir could be frank and convivial
privately ; he enjoyed select wine-parties with his boon companions ; he
admitted Europeans to his table and to his service, and discoursed freely
Avith them. How little religious prejudice was allowed to interfere with
his statecraft may be judged by the fact that he commanded three of
his nephews to embrace Christianity, with the object, as CaptaiH
Hawkins intihiates, of disqualifying them from raising any troublesome
claims to succeed him on the throne.
In 1611 the Emperor had married Nur Jehdn, the daughter of a
Persian who came to India in search of employment. On his way he
fell into such destitution that he abandoned the child, just bom, by the
roadside in Afghanistan. She was saved by a merchant in some caravan,
and was brought to Agra, where her beauty, as she grew up, captivated
Prince Selim, the future Emperor Jehdngir. She was first given in;
marriage to a Persian, whom she accompanied to his estate in Bengsil,
where the' husband, conceiving himself to be insulted at an interview
by the provincial governor, stabbed him, and was himself instantly slain.
Jehdngir, who was now on the throne, sent for the widow and married
her. She rapidly obtained complete ascendancy over the Emperor ;
her father was appointed Prime Minister; and thenceforward in all
the politics of the reign she played a leading part with admirable
courage, cleverness, and high-spirited fidelity to her' consort in times
of great danger, "Nur Jehdn," Sir Thomas Roe notes, "fulfils the
observation that in all actions of consequence a woman is not only^
always the ingredient, but commonly a principall drug of most virtue,
not incapable of conducting business, nor herself void of wit and
subtilitie." And he intimates that a discourse upon the arcana
imperii, the inner politics of the capital, , " would discover a Noble
1616-27] Shah Jehdn's accession. 617
Prinde and an: excellent wife, a faithful counsellor, a craftie step-
mother, an ambitious sonne, a cunning FavoriteT— all reconciled by a
patient King, whdse heart was not understood by any of these." Nur
Jehdn steadily supported her step-son, Prince Eharram the heir-apparent,
until her own daughter married Jehdngir's youngest son, when she
transferred all her influence to the promotion of his candidature for the
succession. The result was that Prince Kharram (afterwards the Emperor
Shah Jeh£n) took up arms, was defeated and pardoned, but rebelled
again, and eventually fled into exile. She then planned the ruin of
Mohabat Elian, Jehdngir's best general, whose power and reputation
might interfere with her designs. Mohabat obeyed a summons to
the Emperor's camp, but instead of submitting to arrest he captured
Jehdngir in his tent by a night attack, foiled a desperate attempt made
by Nm- Jehdn to rescue him, and carried both the Emperor and his
wife, who had joined her husband in captivity, to Afghanistan. For
the eventual recovery of his liberty and authority Jehfegir was entirely
indebted to Nur Jehdn, who fomented discord and mutiny among
Mohabat's troops, until a sudden and daring stratagem set him free.
Mohabat escaped, to join Prince Kharram in the Dekhan ; but, in 1627,
Jehitogir's death stopped the civil war; and the new Emperor, Shah
Jehdn, took formal possession of the throne without opposition. Nur
Jehi,n withdrew into seclusion, and lived on for twenty years, treated
always with liberality and singular consideration.
Jehdngir, when he died in 1627, left his throne to be the prize, as
usual, of the strongest competitor. His two sons Kharram and Shahryar
at once took the field against each other ; and Shahryar seized Lahore,
but was speedily defeated before Kharram reached his capital at Agra,
where he was proclaimed Emperor with the title of Shah Jehdn, and
his brother was before long put to death. The disturbances which
invariably beset each new ruler of this extensive empire, with its ill-
assorted provinces, and numerous recalcitrant feudatories, and its restless
tribes, soon broke out. In the north an irruption of the Usbegs, who
were besieging Kabul, had to be repelled. In the country west of the
Jumna river a chief of the Bundela Rajputs threw off" his allegiance, and
was not reduced to submission without sharp fighting. TTien Khan
Jehin Lodi, an Afghan commander in the imperial service, a man of
intractable temper, suspecting that the Court was plotting his destruction,
marched away from Agra with his troops in open mutiny. They were
pursued and overtaken by the imperial forces ; but though he lost many
men in an engagement, Khan Jehdn made his way through the woods
and wolds of central India into the kingdom of Ahmednagar at Bijapur.
Shah Jehdn followed in pursuit, but the approach of an imperial army
threatened the independence of both kingdoms. The Regent of Ahmed-
nagar joined the mutineers ; and, though he lost a battfe, the war
spread, involving the Emperor in long and laborious campaigns. Bijapur
518 Wars in the Dekhan and in Afghanistan. [i629^9
was besieged by him in person, when its ruler laid waste all the
surrounding country, which was also ravaged by the Moghuls, After
much fruitless and exhausting warfare Bijapur and Golcoiida agreed
to pay tribute ; the kingdom of A'hmednagar was destroyed; and Shah
Jehdn returned to his capital ; but it may be said that from this time
forward the Dekhan was in a state of chronic turbulence arid smouldering
insurrection against the authority of the Moghul Emperors. iFrom the
■first establishment of their dominion, these three kingdoms had formed
a barrier that checked its extension southward by combination to resist
encroachment, by harbouring dangerous rebels and (mutinous generals,
by harassing warfare in a distant and difficult country. Their yagufe
was now broken, and their strength materially diminished ; but> since
the control of the imperial sovereignty could never be enforced or
maintained, the imsettlement and dilapidation of all this region increased.
FrOm this period may be dated the first appearance, on the political
stage, of the Marathas, who fostered and propagated rebellion until it
became an, epidemic plague, which proved eventually fatal to the Moghul
dynasty.
At the opposite extremity of the empire, in Afghanistan,' Shah
Jehdn's affairs had at first been remarkably prosperous. The important
frontier fortress of Kandahar was surrendered to him in 1637 by the
Persian governor, who undertook to reconquer the Oxus provinces,
Balkh and Badakshd% which had been overrun by the Usbegs. He
soon found the northern tribes too strong for him ; and Shah Jehdn
brought an army to Kabul for his support ; but after some victories in
the field the imperial troops, wearied out by incessant incursions from
beyond the Oxus and svurounded by active indefatigable enemies, were
withdrawn. The provinces were left, in charge of an Usbeg prince,
who had tendered his allegiance to the Moghul; and Aurungzeb, the
Emperor's son, who had been left in command, lost the greater part
of his army in a calamitous retreat through the Afghan passes. Mean-
while the Persiahs were preparing to recover Kandahar. In the winter
of 1648 Shah Abbds invested the town with a powerful force. Aurungzeb
marched under urgent orders froni headquarters to relieve it ; but the
snow blocked the road froih Kabul and India; and, in spite of great
exertions, he could not reach the place in time to prevent its surrender.
When at last he arrived, in the spring of 1649, the Persian garrison
made an obstinate defence, much assisted by a Persian army which
hovered round the besiegers and cut oiF supplies. Aurungzeb' was com-
pelled to retire, and in the following year he was equally unsuccessful.
Three years later, the Emperor's eldest son, Ddra Shekoh, renewed the
siege with a fresh army. Four' months were spent in unsuccessful
assaults, ending with the repulse of a final and desperate attempt to
take the fortress by storm. Whereupon Ddra led baek his troops,
enfeebled by heavy losses and thoroughly discomfited, to India ; and
1657] Deposition of Shah Jehdn by Aurungzeb. 619
Kandahar, the most important frontier fortress of the empire, passed
irretrievably out of the possession of the Moghuls.
The hardship and disasters of Afghan warfare, and his failures before
Kandaiiar, had probably convinced Aui'ungzeb that he could neither in-
crease his military reputation nor advance his fortunes by campaigns in that
region. He had since been transferred to the command of the armies on
the empire's southern frontier, where he soon contrived to foment intrigues
which produced hostilities with the kingdoms of Golconda and Bijapur.
Against these adversaries, much less formidable than the northern tribes,
his operations were successful; and meanwhile he could organise his
troops, augment his power and personal influence, and await the turn
of events at the capital. His opportunity came in 1657, when his
father fell dangerously ill, and Ddra Shekoh, his eldest brother, took
charge of the government at Agra. Shah Jehdn had four sons, all in
the. prime of life, accustomed to military comraand, ambitious and
jealous with good reason of each other's ascendancy ; they lost no time
in marshalling their forces and asserting their respective claims. Prince
Shujah, who was Viceroy in Bengal, advanced toward the capital with
the troops in his province. Prince Mordd, Viceroy in Guzerat, laid
hands on the provincial treasures, and assumed the royal title. Aurungzeb
assembled his troops for a march northward from the Dekhan ; but his
movements were marked by politic circumspection ; he held back until
Dara had. defeated Shujah, and he prevailed upon Mordd to make
common cause with him. These two princes led their united army
toward Agra ; and Dara sallied Out to encounter them at a short
distance from the capital, with a much more numerous force. On Ddra's
side the furious onset of the Rajputs at one moment brought Am-ungzeb
into imminent peril ; but Ddra's elephant, on which he was conspicuously
leading the frontal attack, was struck by a rocket and became so un-
manageable that Ddra was obliged to mount a horse; When his men
lost sight of him the rumour flew about that he was killed; and as
the death of their commander meant the extinction of the cause for
which they were fighting, the whole army dispersed in general panic,
leaving Aurungzeb and Mordd completely victorious. Ddra, escaping
with some cavalry to Agra, continued his flight to Delhi ; and the
two princes occupied the capital, where Aurungzeb deprived his father
of all authority by placing him in honourable confinement. His
brother Mordd, being of no further use, was thrown into prison, and
executed some years later. From Delhi, i Ddra attempted to reach
Afghanistan; but Aurungzeb's pursuit was so hot upon his track that he
turned southward into Sinde, and after some circuitous journeying re-
appeared in Rajputana, where thei powerful chief of Jodhpur, after at
first supporting, was finally persuaded by Aurungzeb to desert him. At
Ajmir he was again utterly defeated by Aurungzeb, and wandered about
India, an unhappy fugitive, until he was betrayed into the hands of
CH. XV,
620 State of India under Shah Jehdn. [i 657-61
his brother, who immediately put him to death. Shah Jehdn, after
eight years' confinement as a state prisoner, ended his life in the palace
at Agra. ■
It was in Shah Jehdn's reign that the Moghul empire reached its
climax of external magnificence. His retinue, his brilliant Court, the
grand scale of his civil and military establishments, far surpassed any-
thing that had been seen before or after him in India. Splendid
edifices, unmatched for size and beauty in the Mohammadan world, still
remain to commemorate his passion for architecture ; and he entirely
rebuilt on a new site the city of Delhi, with its palace, marble halls, and
the great mosque. His general administration has been so often praised
that it must have been much superior to that of his predecessors ; and
the historians of his time give him full credit for governing firmly and
consistently, with a generous disposition toward his subjects, and praise-
worthy solicitude for their welfare. But he was a despot, ruling with ho
system effectively organised for controlling the abuses, the corruption,
and the tyranny of his subordinates. The letters of Bemier, a French
physician, w,ho arrived in India about the end of Shah Jehdn's reign, and
was for twelve years in the service of Aurungzeb, contrast the opulence
and glory of the imperial capitals, the prodigal luxuiy of the grandees,
the glittering brilliancy of the Court, with the miserable impoverishment
of the peasants and artisans, and the squalid aspect of thei outlying
towns and villages. Commerce and 'agriculture were overburdened with
capricious exactibns, and depressed- by the general insecurity of all
property. The wealth of the whole country . was sucked in' from all
parts of the empire to the great cities that were the centres of govern-
ment, to provide for the maintenance of a huge army, to defray the cost
of the imperial buildings, and to supply a vast outlay on the sumptuous
establishments of the official nobility, and on the horde of adventiu-ers
and parasites by whom the Court was infested. Upon the expenditure
which flowed out in these various channels from the public treasury the
prosperity of such cities as Delhi and Agra so largely depended, that
when the Emperor marched out with his army and all his high officers
of state, he was followed by such a crowd of merchants and shopkeepers
that the camp was, as Bernier observes, little less than a travelling
capital.
After four years of intermittent warfare against rivals and insurgents
Aurungzeb had effectually disposed of all resistance to his authority,
and was undisputed lord of upper and central India, from the Himalaya
mountains to the eastern and western sea-coasts. But further south, in
the Indian peninsula, the independent Mohammadan kingdoms of Bijapur
and Golconda still held out ;against the encroachments of their powerful
neighbour ; though within their own territory they were now threatened
by a new and dangerous uprising against their governments. This
region of India is for the nlost part a coun tiy of flat-topped hills, fertile
164S-80] Sivc^ and the Maratha revolt. 621
vaJes, and long tracts of scrubby woodlands and stony wolds, spreading^
with broad interspaces of cultivated land, from the mountains on the
west coast far inland. It was studded with forts on craggy steeps among
deep ravines; and toward the sea the inner ranges were peopled by
a rough and turbulent Hindu folk, never thoroughly tamed by the
Mohammadan dynasties that had been overlords in this part of India
from the fourteenth century. This region bore the ancient name
Maharashtra ; its population, which was really a medley of different
tribes and castes, was known in northern India by the indefinite designar
tion of Maratha. The Maratha leaders had originally made their way
forward by service under the Mohammadan Kings in their wars against the
Moghuls ; they obtained grants of land and the charge of troops ; and,
when these kingdoms were being gradually weakened and overpowered
by the imperial armies, the Marathas rose to the front. About the
middle of the seventeenth century their famous chief, Sivaji, had
collected a force of disbanded soldiery, outlaws and plundering brigands,
with which he seized some forts and districts belonging to Bijapur, and
dispersed a large army sent against him, having assassinated its general,
Afzal Khan, by treachery. The Bijapur King was obliged to make
peace with him, and to leave him in possession of considerable territory ;
whereupon Sivaji laid the whole country round under contribution and
pillage. In one of his raids he plimdered Surat, to the great damage of
the English merchants at that seaport : an exploit that greatly incensed
Aurungzeb, who despatched a large army to punish him.
Nevertheless it was Aurungzeb's policy to conciliate such a trouble-
some rebel. Sivaji's submission was accepted; he went to Delhi, fled
back to his own country, and was soon again capturing forts and laying
waste the Moghul districts in open defiance of the Emperor's authority.
During the next few years, while Aurungzeb was occupied by an
insurrection in Afghanistan, where a calamitous reverse had for the time
upset his government, the Maratha chief increased his fighting power
and extended his possessions, harassing and despoiling Bijapur and
Golconda. He had assumed a royal title, and had made an alliance
with Golconda to resist the imperial armies sent to attack that kingdom,
when he died in 1680. His son, Sambaji, continued desultory hostilities
against the Moghuls, until he was captured and put to death by
Aurungzeb. The confusion and disorder in southern India were now
seriously endangering the empire's integrity on that side. The Marathas
were captm-ing hill forts, gathering into freebooting companies under
daring captains, and declaring themselves the champions of the Hindu
race and religion against Mohammadan oppression. It has been alleged
that the imperial generals purposely let the war run on instead of
Rajastdn terminating it by vigorous operations, lest they should be
transferred to much harder and more hazardous commands among the
Afghan mountains. The Emperor determined to assume the personal
622 Aurungzeb's wars in southern India. [1683-1707
command of his southern armies, but he had driven the leading chiefs into
revolt by acts of bigotry and perfidy; and when he invaded their country
they opposed him with a formidable combination that was not broken
up until two years' hard fighting had devastated their country and
compelled them to accept a treaty. In 1683, however, he threw his
whole military foi-ce against them, determined to extinguish resistance
of every kind, to extirpate the Maratha bands, and to subjugate all this
region permanently. One of his generals advanced upon Golconda,
pillaged the town and the royal treasury, and left the kingdom crippled
by intestinal disorders and general dilapidation. Bijapur surrendered,
after a siege, to Aurungzeb, who imprisoned its King, annexed his
territory, and dismantled his fortress. He then turaed again on
Golconda, which was reduced and finally ruined. The capture and
execution of Sambaji had at first intimiidated the Marathas ; but their
principal chiefs raised the standard of revolt in different places, collected
strong bands of marauders, levied blackmail on all the landholders,
proclaimed a religious war of Hindus against Mohammadans, and spread
anarchy throughout the country which had been disorganised by the
subversion of the two Mohammadan States. . The fall of those Govern-
ments had thrown out of employ a swarm of mercenaries, and had stirred
up and set' free the elements of turbulence and riot among the armed
peasantry, so that any freebdoting adventurer could recruit his free-
lances to harry the outposts' and cut off the convoys of the Moghul
array, to seize a fort, overawe a district, and sequestrate the land
revenue for the support of his men. They lived on the country and
impoverished the imperial treasury. Meanwhile Aunmgzeb ' and his
generals were pressing the main body of the Marathas and recapturing
some important fortresses ; but although they struck some heavy blows
they coiild never cut the sinews of their active enemy ; and to disperse a
compact force was only to break it up into guerilla bands.
It is clear that Aurungzeb's great enterprise — the conquest of south
Indian — was a political 'miscalculation as well as a military failure. The
expansion of his empire proved fatal to its solidity ; he had seized more
than he could hold ; he was unable to enforce an unpopular despotism
over distant provinces, where the nature of the country favoured
defence, among a people whom his intolerance had provoked to
obstinate resistance. His huge, unwieldy army, burdened with all the
furniture arid followers of a camp that was also a Courts was gradually
worn down by the attacks of a diffuse and impalpable enemy. Through-
out the laist twenty-four years of his long reign, from 1683 to 1707, the
Empieror was commander-in-chief of his forces in the field, contending
vigorously but vainly against the growing strength of the Maratha
hordes, which swarmed round him, as a contemporary annalist said, like
ants or locusts, ravaging his. lands, appropriating his revenues, and
rackrenting the peasantry; while his finances were ruined by the drain of
1707-11] Death of Aurungzeb: 523
excessive military expenditure, and his troops became disheartened and
insubordinate. On his northern frontier the Afghan tribes were in
perpetual revolt ; in the south he had been caught in a quicksand
of misfortunes. Yet he strove stubbornly against manifest adversity.
Encompassed and pursued by his enemies, he retreated to Ahmednagar,
where he died in his eighty-ninth year, having reigned just half a
century. No two rulers could be less alike in character than Aurungzeb
and Marcus Aurelius, yet one is reminded of the Roman Emperor
expiring in his Pannonian camp after fourteen years of incessant
frontier warfare, when the Parthians were threatening Syria and the
barbarian tribes were tiring out his legions on the Danube^
In a letter which Aurungzeb dictated from his death-bed to his
son he confessed that his enemies were many, but pleaded, " Whatever
good or evil I have done, it was for you." Bemier, who knew him
intimately, admits that Aurungzeb gained his throne by violent and
terrible deeds, alleging in- palliation of them the cruel, necessity that
compelled a royal prince at each demise of the Crown to fight
for his own hand and wiuj or perish. ' And he concludes the history
of this reign thus, " I am convinced that a little reflection on all that
has been here written wiU induce my readers to regard Aurungzeb
not as a barbarian, but as a man of great and rare genius j a statesman,
and a grand monarch."
After Aurungzeb's death the empire fell into rapid decline, for
the growth and multiplication, of internal troubles disabled resistance
to foreign aggression. The inevitable war of succession began at
once. Of Aurungzeb's three sons the eldest, Bahidur Shah,' was
proclaimed Emperor in northern India, and seized Delhi ; another
strengthened himself in the south, while the third brother marched
upon Agra. Both of them were defeated and slain by Bahddur Shah ;
but in central India the Rajput chiefs rose in rebellion, and the
Punjab was overrun by the Sikhs, a fierce and fanatical sect of Hindus,
whom Aurungzeb had put down with bigoted severity, and who broke
out again fiercely after his death. Bahddur Shah storihed their strong-
hold and killed their leader ; but he died at Lahore in 1711, having
reigned barely five years. He W£is the last able riiler of his dynasty,
one who might have stayed for a time the crash of a falling empii'e ;
and the flood-tide of insurrection was too strong for his incapable
successors. Hitherto, as has been seen, each Emperor had been the
able man of his family, chosen by the ordeal of battle. The process
was now reversed ; and henceforward Emperors were selected for their
impotence ; they were set up and pulled down by ambitious ministers
or vicious favourites, whose intrigues and factions completed the dis-
organisation of the Government.
The closing annals of the Moghul dynasty^ record brief reigns with
intervals of bloody tumult, rebellions, privy conspiracies and assassina-
524 IHssolution of the Moghul empire. [1711-71
tions. The local governors and military commanders began to 'parcel
out their provinces into independent principalities. Nizdm-ul-Mulk,
the Viceroy of southern India, defeated the imperial armies, and founded
the present State of Haidardb^. Oudh and Bengal were slipping out
of control ; a band of Afghan adventurers settled down as chiefs of
Hohilkhand ; and in western India Poona became the capital of a for-
midable Maratha confederacy, whose armies overran all the midlands, and
ravaged the plains around Agra and Delhi. In the midst of all this havoc
and spoliation came news from without that NMir Kuli K^han, who now
reigned by usmrpation in Persia, had taken Kabul, and was invading
India. With a great army he descended upon Peshdwar, traversed the
Punjab, routed the imperial forces, gave up Delhi to pillage and mas-
sacre, and went back after rending from the Moghul all his provinces
west of the Indus. This fatal blow at the empire's heart ^precipitated its
destruction ; for the north-west frontier of India now lay open and
defenceless. Within the next forty years the splendid dominion founded
by BAbar's conquests was completely demolished. It was reduced to a
few districts near Delhi, along the Ganges and the Jumna rivers;
and the Moghid empire became a broken wreck, with a crowd of
plunderers quarrelling over its fragments. In 1747, when Nddir Shah
was murdered in his camp, Ahmad Shah Abdali, an Afghan chief who
commanded a corps in the Persian army, rode off with his tribesmen to
their own country. At Kandahar he was proclaimed King, and he
soon took isidvantage of the distracted condition of Persia and India to
make himself an independent ruler of Afghanistan, to invade the Punjab,
and to place his garrisons at Lahore. In a second expedition he sacked
Delhi, and scoured the country as far as Agra, retiring to his mountains
when the summer heat spread sickness among his troops. Then the
Maratha confederacy, now at the zenith of their power, sent a great
army northward^ which drove out Ahmad Shah's garrisons, and swept
over the Punjab ; but in the northern plains they met an adversary who
was more than their match. For in 1759 Ahmad Shah came down
again upon India with all the fighting men of the Afghan tribes; he
marched along the skirts of the Himalayas until he crossed the Jumna
and placed himself in the rear of the Marathas, intercepting their com-
municationSi The two armies met at Pdniput, near Delhi, in the spring
of 1761, when the Marathas were routed with tremendous slaughter.
After this victory nothing opposed Ahmad Shah's conquest of all
northern India ; nevertheless he returned again to his highlands, leaving
the dismantled provinces of the empire to be appropriated by the
various Powers that were now contending for ascendancy, in India. His
successors kept their hold upon the frontier districts of the Punjab and
upon Kashmir ; until early in the nineteenth century the Afghans were
finally driven back into their mountains by the Sikhs. Meanwhile, from
1766 to 1771, the titular Emperor Shah Alam had been living at Allahdb^
1803] JEnd of the Moghul dynasty. 525
under the protection of the English Government, which was now estab-
lished in Beilgal. He then found his way back to Delhi, where he was
no more than a puppet in the hands of the Marathas. Finally, in 1803,
when Lord Lake defeated the Marathas, and drove them out of Agra
and Delhi, all the territory from the Jumna river and the Himalayas south-
eastward to Bengal (except Oudh) passed by cession and conquest to
the British Government; and the Moghul Emperor's jurisdiction was
thenceforward circumscribed by the walls of his palace at Delhi. There
for the next fifty years he held his Court, a mere phantom of extinct
sovereignty, sitting crowned upon the ruins of a magnificent empire.
If, now, we take a rapid survey of the course and constitution of the
Moghul empire, we find that it differed in no material respect from the
ordinary type of Asiatic despotisms. As it began with foreign conquest,
with the subjugation of an immense population by a band of Mohammadan
invaders, the civil and military services were kept mainly in the hands of
Mohammadans — many of them foreigners — and were continuaUyreinforced
from abroad. The Court, Bemier says, was no more than a miscellaneous
crowd of aliens^Usbegs, Persians, Arabs, and Turks, who filled almost
all the high oflBces. The recruiting of the army was managed by the
chief commanders, who imported great numbers of men from their own
country or tribe, from Persia, Afghanistan, and various other parts of
central Asia. Under this system the military forces of the empire
must have consisted very largely of foreign mercenaries, almost entirely
Mohammadan, excepting always the contingents of the Rajput chiefs; for
in India the Hindus so greatly outnumbered the Mohammadans that the
Emperors were obliged to rely principally upon men of their own faith.
The situation of a military autocrat necessitates enlistment of the best
fighting men wheresoever they can be found ; and throughout Asia the
religious element is still a powerful bond of union and a pledge of
fidelity. It may be observed that even in Europe the national army,
which strictly excludes aliens, and takes no account of sectarian divisions
in the ranks, is a very modem institution. But foreign mercenaries are
radically imtrustworthy ; they are apt to change sides on emergencies,
or to desert a falling throne ; and so, when the Moghul Emperors could
no longer command or maintain discipline, their troops looked round for
better leaders ; the professional soldier went where he expected to win.
It is clear that in all governments of this type the mainspring is
irresistible authority in capable hands at the centre. So long as each
successive Emperor gained his throne, and held it against all challengers
by personal superiority, the sceptre passed to the fittest man of the
family. The capacity of the four Emperors who followed Bdbar is
attested by the length of their respective reigns, which covered in aggre-
gate a hundred and forty-one years ; for in Asia a long rule is of
necessity a strong rule; the Moghul empire depended entirely upon
526 Internal constitution of the empire.
vigorous autocratic administration. It is a fact worth notice that the
great towns of Iridiai seem never to have attained any municipal autonomy
that might have given them wedght in politics ; they plsgyed no part in
the civil wars. Many of the petty chiefs and large landholder? preserved
independence within their own domains and in outlying districts ; but
the practice of the Moghill government was to leVel all obstacles to
arbitrary power. The nobility created by the Emperors was almost,
entirely official ; it consisted mainly of high civil officers and of military
commanders, who held lands on service-tenure, and could be dismissed at
the sovereign's pleasure. Most of these Omrah, as they were called,
were foreign adventurers, soldiers of fortune, or slaves and parasites
whom the Emperor promoted or degraded capriciously;. Another point
to be observed is that in India th6 great religious corporations never had
the influence that they have -possessed in other Mohammadan kingdoms.
In the Osmanli empire, for example, the Ulema, the expounders of the
law of Islam, have always kept the, Sultan in check; but in the general
population of India their authority could have little support, and could
be disregarded by the government. Throughout western Asia, up to the
borders of India, the Mohammadans had established complete political
and religious supremacy ; their subjects were united under one religious
law, which controlled and fortified the civil power. But in India a
general conversion to Islam was impossible ; and the Emperors could only
rule by holding the balance betweeni two great religious communities,
always ready to take up arms against each other. The combined, result
of all these, facts and circumstances was an inordinate centralisation of
authority at the capitals, whereby the whole fabric became unstable and
top-heavy ; so that when this supreme authority passed into feeble hands
the empire, loosened by internal revolt and battered by foreign enemies,
toppled over into irremediaMe coUapsei, . ^
Nevertheless a weak and ill'governed rulership may la^t. long if it
can resist foreign aggression ; but this was a danger to which the Moghul
empire was peculiarly exposed. We know that from the beginning of
authentic history aU Asiatic invaders of India have made their entry
from the west and north-we?t. On no other side,, in fact, was it possible
for armies to tr£^verse the lofty mountain ranges which separate the
northern plains of India from central Asia : they can only reach India
by a few pfl^ses through the highlands, or by a circuitous route across
barren regions on the south-west. But for the conquest of ludia it was
never sufficient to bring an army successfully through the; passes ; it was
also essential that the invader should be able to keep them open behind
him; and for this purpose it was necessary to begin by securing a base
in Afghanistan to hold in strength the fortresses which cover the few
practicable roads thrpugh the mounta,ins, and to guard the narrow
defiles opening upon the plains. Since the days of Alexander the unruly
Afghan 1t?;ibes have al\ifays risen on an army's flanks and rear, have
Frontier difficulties. — Afghanistan. 527
harried the march, intercepted convoys, and attempted to cut oflF com-
munications. The centre of this country may be roughly described as a
huge oblong quadrilateral block of mountains. On the east its steep
ranges overlook the Indian frontier. But on the north-western side of.
Afghanistan, beyond the mountain ranges, and toward the lower course
of the Oxus river, the lands are comparatively level, sparsely populated,
and easily accessible from Persia and central Asia. On the western side
also, from Herat to Kandahar, the country is open, and traversable by
armies ; while southward is a sandy desert stretching down to Belucbistan.
To invade Afghanistan from the north and west is much less difficult
than to do so from the east, where whoever occupies the mountain
quadrilateral holds the point of vantage, the key of the Indian gates,
for attack or defence. No invader by land has found it possible to
conquer and establish himself in India without keeping strong garrisons
in Afghanistan ; and so long as he was master of the highlands he could
subdue the plains at his leisure.
But the next difficulty is to hold the mountains from a base in the
plains ; for whenever a successful conqueror has settled down in India — ^in
a wide and wealthy region, where great armies can be maintained on an
ample revenue — some fresh invasion from the west, or a tribal revolt,
has threatened his position in Afghanistan. All the successors of the
Emperor Akbar were worried and weakened by exhausting campaigns
and frequent military reverses in the Afghan mountains, which diverted
their forces and cramped their operations against rebels and rivals else-
where ; while beyond those mountains the necessity of defending a distant
frontier on the Oxus or the Helmand river laid an intolerable strain on
their military resources, locking up their best troops in the far north at
times when they were eiitangled in the wars of southern India. The con-
solidation, in the sixteenth century, of Persia under the powerful Safevi
dynasty had given them an enterprising neighbour who was constantly
encroaching upon the debatable lands between the two empires. The
loss of Kandahar in 1648 made a serious breach in their strategic frontier
on this side; and during the seventeenth century the government at
Delhi was continually losing ground in Afghanistan. In 1666 Shah
Abbds led a great Persian army by Kandahar against Kabul. He died
on the march, and his forces withdrew; but his inroad was the signal for
a general revolt of the Afghan tribes from the Moghul authority.
And finally, in the eighteenth century, when Nddir Shah expelled
the Moghul governor from Kabul and seized all their territory west
of the Indus river, the barriers that protected India from invasion
were thereby completely destroyed; and the gates of India, which
had been held for two hundred years by the Moghul dynasty, were
irrecoverably lost, to the mortal injury of an enfeebled and sinking
empire.
In Afghanistan, therefore, we have a striking example of a poor
528 Bise of the British dominion in India.
and barbarous country, whose situation and natural strength nevertheless
gives it great political importance; for its strategical position may
exercise a permanent influence over the fortunies of a rich and powerful
dominion. The case has occurred more than once in history- — the
nearest parallel is with the position of Armenia between the Roman aiid
Parthian empires during the first centuries of the Christian ; era. Of.
Armenia Tacitus writes that it has been of old an unsettled . country
from the character of its people and its geographical situation, bordering
as it does upon the Roman provinces and stretching far into Media,
lying between two great empires, constantly at strife with both of them;
hating Rome and jealous of Parthia. Mutatis mutandis, we have here
a description of Afghanistatt.
In the annals of Asia the Moghul empire stood foremost in wealth,
population, and power among the great States that attained their climax
in that continent during the sixteenth century, though the Osmanli
sultanate is of much more historical importance, because its capital and
its richest provinces were in Europe. Yet the events and circumstances
which followed and were produced by the dissolution of the Moghul
empire are closely connected with modern history, and exercised a
marked influence on the politics of Europe. Simultaneously with the
decay and disruption of this mighty rulership a new dominion began;
to grow and spread in its place ; and the rise of the British dominion
in India has been the direct consequence of its predecessor's fall. The
epoch marks a turning-point in the fortunes of both continents, for
Asiatic dominion was receding in Europe; while European dominion
was beginning its advance into Asia. From the fifteenth to the seven-
teenth century the armies of the Osmanli Sultans had been subjugating
eastern Europe; but the defeat of the Turks before Vienna in, 1683
stopped and gradually reversed; the tide of invasion ; and from the
commencement of the eighteenth century may be dated a renewal,
after many centuries, of the ancient rule of European Powers over Asiatic
lands. Russia was taking her first steps beyond the Caspian ; a,nd. the
maritime nations of Europe had fixed their settlements on the Indian
coast.
Nevertheless, between the empire that fell and the empire that
rose in India during the eighteenth century there was complete dis-
similarity— a clear contrast of original character, of historical antecedents,
and in respect to the ways and means by which dominion was at first
attained. There is no likeness whatever between the gradual acquisition
of territory by a pacific trading company and the violent inroad of m.
Tartar horde from the mountainSj or between the slow penetration of
commerce and the upsetting of thrones by the sword. So long as the
Moghul empire was vigorously governed, the Europeans at the seaports
made no progress inland ; they began to gain ground when the outlying
provinces fell away from the central authority, leaving the sea-coast
Occupation by Europeans of the sea-coast. 529
entirely undefended, for the Moghul empire had never maintained a
navy. For ages the long sea-board of peninsular India had been safe-
guarded by the wide ocean ; but from the sixteenth century, when the
armed fleets of Europe found their way across it, the ocean became a
high-road for invaders instead of a barrier against them. One vital
defect in the fighting strength of purely Asiatic States on the mainland
is that they have never maintained effective naval armaments; a fact
that is of fundamental importance in the modem history of Asia. It
explains why European ships of war, or even armed traders, could seize
ports and promontories, land troops, and take up stations whence they
could eventually advance to annex the maritime provinces of India,
which are singularly exposed to attack. The estuaries of the great rivers
offer safe harbourage, and waterways for penetration inland ; their
streams are like great arteries branching out from the heart of India ;
the low-lying tracts along the coast are flat, fertile, inhabited by an
unwarlike, industrious population. In these distant parts of the empire
the control from the capitals had always been weak ; it was entirely lost
when disintegration set in at the centre; and the Moghul dynasty
never conquered the extreme south of the Indian peninsula. Early in
the eighteenth century the Marathas had seized all the territory adjacent
to Bombay ; in the south-east the Viceroy of the Dekhan was master
in the districts surrounding Madras ; in Bengal the local governor was
shaking off the imperial authority. But none of these upstart ruler-
ships, excepting the Marathas — who were quarrelling among themselves —
had any solidity or cohesion. At such a period of political confusion
the rapid success of foreign intruders, well furnished with disciplined
troops and money, and holding undisputed command of the sea, is no
matter for surprise. The Moghul empire perished because, at a period
of great internal disorganisation, its frontiers on the sea and on the land
were equally defenceless — the European was advancing from the coast,
while the hordes of central Asia were pouring in through the mountains
of Afghanistan.
(2) THE ENGLISH AND FRENCH IN INDIA.
(1720-63.)
In a former volume the history of Europeans in India has been
brought down to the second decade of the eighteenth century. A very
brief review must suffice for the next twenty-four years. It was for
the English and French alike a period mainly of commercial prosperity
and silent growth; but it by no means merits such neglect as it has
sometimes received ; and it is useful to bear in mind that by 1744, the
starting-point of so many histoi-ies of the British in India, the Company
had ali'eady existed for more than hali' of its allotted span of life.
c. u. n. VI. ou. XV. 3i
630 The East India and South Sea Companies. [1712-33
The greatest danger that menaced the Company at home was that of
being involved in the misfortunes of the South Sea Company. The
frenzy of the " Bubble " caused a great inflation of their stock in 1720,
and one of the measures adopted by Sir Robert Walpole to allay the panic
was an obligation laid upon the East India Company to take over nine
millions of South Sea stock. The Directors wisely consented to the
" Ingraftment," as it was called. It was worth some sacrifice to lay
the State under still further obligations to the Company. Prudence
also m-ged them to bow before the storm of public opinion which
was running so strongly, not only against the South Sea Company but
all trading associations of any kind, that a motion was made in the
Commons to disqualify Directors of such bodies from being elected to
the Ilouse. The sacrifice however proved unnecessary. Walpole carried
his Bill, but it was superseded by the Act for restoring public credit
passed a few months later. Ilie Ingraftment, though an abortive
measure, had given him a much needed breathing space. The know-
ledge that the East India Company was prepared to come to the
rescue helped to chepk the panic. Walpole was not ungrateful, and
proved himself the staunch friend of the Company at a time when his
patronage was of value. An Act of 1712 fixed 1783 as a date for the
possible termination of the Company's privileges. A few years before
that time the forces of opposition to the East India monopoly gathered
once more to a head. But the movement never appears to have had
much chance of success. It was more political than commercial in origin,
the work of opponents of the great Minister rather than the spontaneous
act of the mercantile interest. In February, 1730, a petition was pre-
sented to Parliament against the renewal of the Charter with an alternative
plan for the management of the trade with India. It proved to be, as
was said at the time, an old and thread-bare scheme. The familiar
features of a regulated as opposed to a joint-stock company reappeared.
The petitioners proposed to buy out the East India Company by, raising
the sum (^£"3,200,000) lent by them to the State, and were prepared to
accept a lower interest. Duties were to be paid by the individual
traders, who were made free of the Company, for the upkeep of forts
and settlements in the East.
The East India Company were in no danger. With customary
astuteness. Sir Robert Walpole had taken the sting out of the attack,
before it was launched, by a private understanding with the Court of
Directors. The only consideration likely to attract in Parliament the
votes of those who were not already committed to the scheme was th^
prospect of providing supplies for the public needs. Walpole was able
to announce that the Company were prepared to pay o£'200,000 to the
State for a renewal of their charter, and to accept a lower interest on
their loans to the Government for the future. The petition was rejected
on the first hearing by a majority of 85, and the privileges of the Company
1706-66] Growth of Boinbay and Calcutta. 531
were extended to 1766. The East India Company were thus entrenched,
as events were to prove, from all assaults in the rear during the critiea;!
period of the wars with France.
In the East the chief feature is the gradual growth of the Company'is
settlements amid that rapid dissolution of Moghul power which has been
described in the first section of this chapter. The heart of the empire
decayed faster than the extremities. Bahddur Shah was followed on the
imperial throne by a succession of incapable men, whose short and
turbulent reigns were marked alike at their commencement and close by
dismal periods of revolution and intrigue. Meanwhile, the great feuda-
tories of the empire were busy founding for themselves independent
kingdoms, till the stage was reached when, as it has been graphically
put, the paramount power became a supremacy with which none of the
other parties had any other relation but that of rebellion. The effects
of the process of dissolution were not fully seen till the middle of the
eighteenth centuiy, and they synchronised with the years in which the
English and the French came to open hostility in the East. That
conflict not only determined which nation should oust the other, but
indirectly revealed the fact that the native powers were destined to
succumb before the Western invader.
The ring of semi-independent principalities round the decaying centre
of the empire shielded for a time the European possessions from the forces
of disruption and anarchy. Of the British settlements^ Bombay felt the
ill effects oi Moghul weakness most acutely. The shores of the Arabian
sea were exposed to the depredations of the corsair chief Angria, originally
the admiral of the Maratha fleet, who was often found acting in con-
junction with a band of European pirates having headquarters in
Madagascar. Unsuccessful attacks were made upon Gheria, Angria's
stronghold, in 1717, and again in 1720, when the Company's fleet was
assisted by a powerful naval force. Angria died about 1730; but his
sons succeeded to his lawless sovereignty, and this nest of pirates was
only destroyed in 1756 by the combined efforts of Watson and Clive.
From the land side the Presidency was constantly threatened by the
advance northward of the Maratha armies. Successively, the English
allied themselves with the Siddi, or Moghul admiral, against Angria,
with one of Angria's sons against the other, with the Portuguese against
the Peshwa, and finally in 1739 with the Peshwa himself.
The Presidency of Calcutta prospered on the commercial privileges
granted them by the Court of Delhi in 1717. In 1706 the population
was not more than ten or twelve thousand ; but in 1735 it had risen to
one hundred thousand, and the value of its annual trade was estimated
at a million sterling. The Viceroys or Subahdars of Bengal, now practi-
cally independent of the Moghul empire, though apt to levy exattions
occasionally on the prosperous aliens within their territory, lived on the
whole at peace with them. Two strong rulers covered the period from
CH. XV. 34 — 2
632 Growth of Madras. [i702-56
1702 till 1739, and the usurper who supplanted them reigned till 1756.
In 1742 the Marathas were making their presence felt even in north-eastern
India, and Hooghly was sacked by a plundering force. In alarm for
their settlement, the English in the following year hastily constructed the
famous "Ditch" in the outskirts of Calcutta. But the rich Gangetic
valley^— the commercial and political key of Hindustan — ^was never
destined to pass beUeath the sway of the great Hindu confederacy.
This advance wave of their onset was flung back, and when the main
flood swelled up a few years later, it dashed itself in vain against the
now greatly strengthened bulwarks of British power.
In the latter years of the reign of Aurungzeb southern India, or the
Dekhan, passed nominally under the sway of the Moghul empire. The
country was divided into six SubaJis or provinces, and the whole was
governed by a Viceroy. One, perhaps the most important, of these Suhahs
was the Camatic — the strip of land between the mountains and the sea
extending south of the Estna to the frontiers of Tanjore, containing
within its limits both Madras and Pondicherry. Fortunately for the
European settlements, both the greater political division of the Dekhan
and the smaller subdivision of the Carnatic passed soon after the death
of Aurungzeb into the hands of men who, being in general capacity
above the level of Indian rulers, established their respective governments
with elements of permanency. After many revolutions and counter-
revolutions Nizdm-ul-Mulk, the Viceroy of southern India, founded what
was practically an independent kingdom at Haidardbdd in 1723 and
reigned till 1748. In the Camatic a strong dynasty ruled from 1710 to
1740. Till the end of this period there was on the whole tranquillity
in the province, though from time to time rumours of trouble from the
Marathas reached the ears of the dwellers in the seaports. A long duel
for supremacy in the Dekhan was being fought out between the NizAm and
Baji Rao, one of the greatest of the Peshwas. The English in Madras
watched the issue of the conflict with an intense and strained interest.
Complimentary letters were despatched to Haidaribdd when the fortunes
of the Nizdm were in the ascendant. The internal history of the
Presidency is uneventful. The most notable Governor was James Macrae,
a Scotchman, of Ayrshire, who carried out many valuable reforms in
financial administration. In 1740 Dost Ali, the Nawib of the Camatic,
was defeated and slain by the Marathas, and the horsemen of the
victorious army rode almost up to the outskirts of Madras. It is there-
fore noticeable that about the same time the Maratha confederacy was
impinging on all the British chief settlements in India,
When the Scotchman John Law became the guiding spirit of the
French finances, Colbert's East India Company became entangled in his
all-embracing system. It was incorporated in 1719 with the Company
of the West, or Mississippi Company as it was generally called, which
was formed to exploit Louisiana. The new body, known as the Company
1720-45] Progress of the French Company. 633
of the Indies, also absorbed the Senegal Company, the old Canada Com-
pany, the China Company, and the Companies of St Domingo and Guinea,
thus forming one mammoth association with exclusive rights to the
trade of France with the world outside EiurOpe, Not yet satisfied. Law
proceeded to dower it with several state functions, the profits of the coin-
age, the control of the public debt and the monopoly of tobacco, and
finally amalgamated it with his own creation the Royal Bank. When this
architectonic structure collapsed in ruins in 1720, the East India Company
was reconstituted as the " Perpetual Company of the Indies " on its old
basis and divested of all the special privileges granted by Law except
the monopoly of tobacco. True to the traditions of its foundation, the
Company tended more and more to become a mere department of State.
After 1723 the greater officials of the Company, the Directors and
Inspectors, were nominated by the Crown, and the shareholders were
only permitted to elect the Syndics, whose influence over the administra-
tion was very slight. PVequent changes were made in the next few
years ; but gradually all real control passed into the hands of the King's
Commissaries. The most famous of these was Orry de Fulvy, brother of
the Controller-General of Finance, who held office from 1733 to 1745.
Under his rule the fortunes of the Company materially improved ; but
the bureaucratic control of even an enlightened state official was a very
different thing from the driving force of a vigorous private enterprise.
After 1723 fixed dividends were guaranteed by the Crown, irrespective of
the profit or loss on the trade with India and derived mainly from the
farm of tobacco. For twenty years after 1725 the shareholders of the
Company held no meeting, and they gradually sank into a body of
rentiers with no incentive to activity or real interest in Eastern affairs,
utterly unlike the strong and turbulent English Court of Proprietors,
who so often challenged and overruled the policy of the Directors them-
selves. The evils latent in the anomalous and artificial nature of the
Company's finance and its weak dependence on state control were not
apparent in the long period of peace that followed Cardinal Fleury's
accession to power. In India, the French extended their influence by
the acquisition of Mahe (1725), and Karikal (1739). Dupleix, from 1730,
greatly developed the trade and importance of Chandernagore which
had hitherto languished. Benoit Dumas, Governor of Pondicherry from
1735 to 1741, increased the prestige of his country by his statesmanlike
outlook on Indian politics. When Dost Ali was slain by the Marathas,
his family and that of his son-in-law, Chanda Sahib, took refuge in
Pondicherry; and to the skill and address of Dumas was due that close
coimexion between the French and the royal Houses of southern India
upon which the policy of Bussy and Dupleix was afterwards built up.
Though nominally at peace, England and France had been facing
each other on Eioropean battle-fields since 1740, and at last in 1744 war
between the two countries was openly declared. The roar of French
634 Comparative resources of English and French. {1742-^-8
guns ofF Madras in 1746 announced the beginning of a new era in the
East, During the War of the Spanish Succession thirty years before,
various agreements for a local neutrality were made between many of
the English, French and Dutch settlements in India ; and, apart from
some uneasiness as to the fate of incoming or outgoing ships, neither side
seems to have feared aggression on the part of the other. The French
therefore were only acting in accordance with tradition when in 1742
they made informal overtures to the English Company for the declaration
of a general neutrality in the East. These proposals came to nothing,
but the principle that peace or war between European nations necessarily
involves peace or war between their distant possessions hajrdly yet received
open recognition. Even during the War of the Austrian Succession a
strict neutrality was observed between the French and Epglish in Bengal;
and in southern India after 1748 the principle, at least in so far as the
maintenance of peace was in question, received a nominal rather than , an
actual observance.
It is often stated that in 1744 the French and English were equal in
point of strength; but this is proba,bly a misapprehension. From the
outset the advantage in material resources was on the side of the English.
They had, as shown in a former volume, a longer, more continuous, and
more prosperous, history in the East behind them. Their trade exceeded
that of the French several times in bulk, and the importance of this
must not be underrated. The sounder the financial condition of the
Company, the more easily would it support any initial losses in the war
and the greater sacrifices would it be prepared to make in the- conflict to
restore its fallen fortunes. On the mainland of India itself the English
had a greater number of settlements and they were strategically the
better placed. They possessed three Presidencies, the French properly
speaking only one, for Chandemagore was a mere dependency of Pondi-
cherry and, even under the rule of Dupleix, never really rivalled Calcutta.
Their other base of operations was at Mauritius, distant from one to twp,
months' voyage. Climatic conditions had an important effect on the
strategy of the Coromandel coast, where the duel between the two nations
was destined to be fought out. For nearly four months in the year be-
ginning from the end of October, when the monsoons were blowing, the
sailing vessels of those days could not exist off that unsheltered shore, and
the English port of refuge, Bombay, was nearer than the French station
in Mauritius. Though the fall of Pondicherry would, and ultimately did,
imply the end of French dominion in India, the capture of Madras had
no such significance for Great Britain. It was a serious loss ; but Calcutta
and Bombay still remained. Bombay was the one Presidency which was
never captured either by an Indian enemy or by Europeans, pccupying
an isokted position, it had been obliged to defend itself as we have seen
against relentless foes. It was the birthplace and chief seat of that
famous force, the Indian navy, and was in reality stronger than either
1735-46] Earpedition of Lahourdonnais. 535
Madras or Calcutta where long dependence on native governors had
created a spirit of helplessness and inertia.
The conception that the opportunity afforded by a European war
might be utilised to assert supremacy in India originated in the fertile
brain of Mahe de Lahourdonnais, a famous sea-captain and free-lance,
who had been Governor of the Isles of France and Bourbon since 1735
and had founded the prosperity of those colonies by his enlightened and
strenuous policy. He was in France in 1740 ; and, foreseeing the proba-
bility of war being declared with England in the near future, he planned
a privateering expedition against British shipping in India. To this
scheme he succeeded in winning the support of Maurepas, Minister of
Marine, who obliged the East India Company rather against their will to
provide ships for the fleet. He sailed from France in 1741, proposing to
await in Maiuritius the news of the outbreak of hostilities. But war was
not declared till 1744, and meanwhile, in 1742, the Company, which had
never looked with favour on the scheme, ordered him to send back the
fleet to Europe. Lahourdonnais obeyed, declaring that all his projects
had vanished like a dream, and his annoyance was not lessened by the fact
that, immediately after the fleet had started, he received another despatch
cancelling the order and expressing the hope that he had ventured to
disobey it. In the meantime the English, having got wind of Lahour-
donnais' designs, had sent a royal fleet to India under Commodore Bamet,
and the command of the sea had temporarily passed to them. Bamet
threatened Pondicherry ; but Dupleix, who had been appointed Governor
in 1741, appealed to the Nawdb of the Camatic. The Nawdb warned the
English that he could not permit fighting between the European nations
under his protection. Lahourdonnais had been ordered by the home
Government to remain on the defensive, but with characteristic energy he
held equipped and manned a fleet from the slender resources of the Isles
of France. He next proposed to Dupleix, that he should prey on English
East Indiamen by cruising between the Cape arid St Helena; but Dupleix,
who was the master mind throughout this period of preparation, persuaded
him to attempt the capture of Madras, boldly disregarding the neutrality
of the Nawib to which he had himself appealed against the English.
Lahourdonnais' fleet was reinforced by the amval of a squadron from
France, and he left the Isles in March, 1746. His ships being dispersed
a,nd scattered by a terrible storm, he was forced to refit them ofi^ the
coast of Madagascar. The British commander, Peyton, Barnet's successor,
attempted to bar his passage to the Coromandel coast; but Lahourdonnais
beat him back ofl' Negapatam and anchored in the Roads of Pondicherry
at the end of June.
Hitherto Lahourdonnais had acted with the greatest energy and
vigour; but, havinig come within measurable distance of performing the
taisk to which all his preparations had been directed, he showed
a strange indecision. For six weeks he refused, on various pleas, to
636 The capture of Madras. [iwe
proceed to the siege of Madras, unless he received from Dupleix and
the Council of Pondicherry a signed order to attack the town with an
admission on their part that they took full responsibility whatever the
issue might be. The authorities at Pondicherry would not commit
themselves further than to a formal demand that he should either
blockade Madras or pursue the British fleet. Both parties to the
dispute evaded responsibility before the siege, both claimed it after the
town had fallen. Labourdonnais' relations with Dupleix were soon
strained to breaking point. The quarrel between the two men which
was at bottom rather petty has often been dignified into a fundamental
difference in tactics. They had been acquainted earlier in life and each
seems to have contracted a certain dislike of the other. Labourdonnais
in his Memoirs refers to the political schemes of Dupleix as brilliant
chimeras, and when Dupleix heard of Labourdonnais' appointment
to the governorship of the Isles he spoke contemptuously of the
"Jhriboks de cet ivappri,'''' But in planning the attack on Madras
the Governor-General seems to have put a strong curb on his private
feelings, and the responsibility for the rupture between the two men
must be laid chiefly at the door of Labourdonnais.
On September 2 he was at last induced to sail for Madras. This
famous siege hardly deserved the name. The bombardment lasted
several days; but not a single man was killed or wounded on the side
of the French, and the only loss sustained by the English was due to
the accidental bursting of one of their own shells.' The Governor,
Nicholas Morse, was a man of feeble character, and, though the ganison
did not amount to more than three hundred men, a far longer defence
was possible. Dupleix, after the capture, recorded the surprise of himself
and Labourdonnais at the large quantities of stores and ammunition
found in the place. The town was surrendered on September 10.
Labourdonnais at once announced his victory to Dupleix, and in his
first despatch declared that he had the English at his discretion. Two
days later he alludes vaguely to a capitulation on terms, but that nothing
definite was settled seems proved by the fact that he discusses with
Dupleix, as though the question were still open, the alternative plans of
ransoming the place, converting it into a French colony, or razing it to
the ground. Finding that Dupleix claimed the right to decide upon
the fate of the captured town and that he was unalterably opposed to
the idea of a ransom, Labourdonnais hurried on negotiations and signed
a convention to restpre Madras for a sum of ^"420,000, claiming that he
had given his word to the English to adopt this course from the very
beginning. Dupleix, with admirable restraint, had tried reason, persuasion,
and even entreaty, but all in vain. There followed a bitter quarrel into
the sordid details of which it is unnecessary to enter. It would be
hardly possible within a short space to give an exhaustive pronouncement
on the complicated technical and legal points involved. In the natural
1746-8] Quarrel of Dupleioc and, Lahourdonnais. 637
course of events the final decision as to the fate of Madras rested with
Dupleix as Governor- General of the French in India, though by his
apparent unwillingness to accept full responsibility before the siege he
had given Lahourdonnais something of a pretext for demurring to his
authority. On the other hand Lahourdonnais had invalidated, by his
previous demand for definite instructions, the claim he now put forward
to complete independence of the Pondicherry Council. He frequently
appealed to his commission of 1741, which however applied to a different
set of facts. As a recent French writer has pointed out, Orry, in laying
an injunction upon him not to retain any place captured in the East,
never for a moment foresaw his cooperation with Dupleix in an attack on
Madras. The plain duty of the two men was to work together amicably
for the good of their country ; but to this sacrifice of personal animosities
to the dictates of patriotism, they, or at any rate Lahourdonnais, proved
unequal. Throughout the dispute Dupleix was mainly in the right, and
his obstinate colleague in the wrong. There is strong reason for believing
that Lahourdonnais had received a large sum of money as a personal
present from the English in Madras. Culpable as such an action may
appear, the admittedly low standard of the age in all such matters must
be taken into account. It is not always easy to draw the line which
differentiates a complimentary gratuity or douceur from a bribe. Most
men at this time, at all events in India, deemed that they had a right to
lay the foundations of a private fortune by their manipulation of public
policy: Lahourdonnais had no doubt honestly persuaded himself that the
course he preferred was the right one. The whole incident of the quarrel
with Dupleix may easily be magnified out of due proportion. To say
that it saved the English in India is utterly to exaggerate its significance.
It affected the fate of a single Presidency, and that only for a few years.
The Peace of Aix-la-Chapelle in 1748 settled the affairs of India over
the heads of those who had played the chief part in them. Till that
date, Madreis was retained by the French, as it would have been if
Dupleix had succeeded in bending Lahourdonnais to his will. Had the
two men been harmonious from the very first, they might possibly have
directed an attack upon the English in Bengal, though Lahourdonnais
refused even to entertain the idea when suggested by Dupleix, on the
ground that if his neutrality were violated the Moghul would drive the
French for ever from Hindustan. Dupleix never even succeeded in
reducing Fort St David at his own doors. Peyton's fleet still held the
sea. Fort William was hardly likely to yield as pusillanimously as Fort
St George, while, even if it fell, the English would still remain possessed
of Bombay. In 1747, Boscawen was already on his way from England
with a powerful fleet , and, if the French forces had been engaged before
Calcutta when it arrived, Pondicherry itself would have been at his
mercy.
While Lahourdonnais and Dupleix were' still fulminating at each
OB. zv.
638 Siege of Pondich&rry.^— Peace of Aix-la-Chapelle. [i746-8
other in protests and manifestos, the break-up of the monsoons cut
the Gordian knot of their quarrel. The terrific gales that blew off the
Coromandel coast in October, 1746, shattered Labourdonnais' fleet and
forced him to make all sail for the Isles. Twelve hundred disciplined
troops were left behind — the flower of the army which enabled Dupleix
to defend PondicheiTy and carry out his daring incursions into Dekhan
politics.
After Labourdonnais' departure Dupleix cancelled the convention
with the English on the plea that it had been signed by an insubor-
dinate officer who had exceeded his powers. He laid siege to Fort
St David ; but the English were at last stung into ofiering a resistance
worthy of their national reputation, and he met here with his first check.
The arrival of Boscawen and Griffin with the most powerful fleet that
had ever appe3,red on the Indian Ocean, including thirteen ships of the
line, completely transformed the position of affairs. In August, 1748,
Pondicherry was subjected to a severe siege — war in grim earnest unlike
the, farcical operations round Madras. The English lost over a thousand
men ; and, though their conduct of the ppejcatioms is said to have shown
great incapacity, the French defence was brilliantly directed and remains
one of the most considerable achievements of Dupleix. The siege was
raised early in October, seven days before the Peace was announced in
India. By the Treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle Madras was given back to the
English in exchange for Cape Breton. Thus ended the first round of the
Anglo-French contest. Nominally, the status quo was restored ; but to
those who could look below the surface the position was wholly different.
The old neutrality and security were gone by for ever. The sword once
drawn, it could not again be sheathed till the issue had been fought out
to the bitter end. Though their material gains were taken from them,
the prestige of the French was greatly increased. They had captured
the enemy's chief settlement on the Coromandel coast and repelled him
from the walls of their own. Dupleix well knew how to make the most
of such a success, and his emissaries celebrated the victory in every native
Court. Contemporary Englishmen might speak slightingly of French
pride and gasconade; but, though the element of vanity was not
lacking in the character of Dupleix, his action masked a very subtle and
formidable policy.
Both English and French were after 1748 left with larger forces in
garrison than they had been accustomed to maintain. The recent war
had given them a taste for campaigning, and opportunities for indulging
it soon presented themselves. To the English; belongs the credit' or
discredit of the first step. Tempted by the offer of Devicota, a port at
the mouth of thie Colerpon river, they interfered in a disputed succession
in Tanjore. Their success was so moderate that they were under little
temptation to repeat the experiment; but the principle received a far
wider application at the hands of the Fi;ench, Unable to rival the
1740-50] Dynastic wars in southern India. 539
English in trade, Dupleix turned his attention to political intrigue.
The residence of native royal families in Pondicherry since 1740 had
brought him into dose relation with the ruling Houses of the Dekhan.
His thoroughly orientalised imagination luxuriated in the study of
their conflicting claims, dynastic revolutions and strange vicissitudes
of fortime. The Nizam -ul-Mulk, the virtual overlord of southern
India, died after a long and prosperous reign in 1748, and the succession
was disputed among his sons. Dupleix, with great daring, supported
the cause both of a claimant to the throne of the Dekhan and a pre-
tender against Anwar-ud-din, the ruling NawAb of the Camatic. His
candidate for the latter post was the famous Chanda Sahib, a connexion
by marriage of the older royal House that had been supplanted by
Anwar-ud-din in 1744. Chanda Sahib was a man of considerable ability,
who seems to have realised that the future in India lay with the
Europeans and employed his leisure in studying the memoirs and
campaigns of Conde and Turenne. The French had already come into
serious collision with Anwar-ud-din in 1746, by refusing to fulfil their
promise to hand over Madras to him when conquered from the Englishi
The striking success of the French in the fighting which ensued made
Dupleix realise with characteristic quickness and vividness that the
best native troops could set no barrier to the advance of disciplined
European armies.
At the battle of Ambur, 1749, Anwar-ud-din was defeated and slain.
The Carnatic passed under the control of the protig& of the French,
and he in gratitude made large territorial concessions to his European
allies. MozafFar Jang, the French candidate for the thione of the
Dekhan, was not so successful; he was vanquished and taken prisoner by
Nasir Jang, the ruling Prince, mainly through a mutiny of the French
officers, who forced their general to retreat in face of the enemy. But from
what was apparently a d^sp^i'^te situation Dupleix: extricated himself
with a coolness and serenity that were truly admirable. The military
position was restored in 1750 by the storming of Gingi, a fortress
hitherto regarded as impregnable. Nasir Jang was soon after fissassi-
nated; Mozaffar Jang was released, and was enthroned at Pondicherry
as ruler of the Dekhan. Masulipatam and Divi were made over to
the French; and a vague and high-sounding title was conferred upon
Dupleix, who was hailed as Governor of southern India from the Kistna
to Cape Comorin. It is often said that henceforward Dupleix riiled
absolutely over thirty millions of people and a country larger than
France; but, though the reputation of the French was now carried very
high and their indirect influence was very great, the truth fell considerably
short of this. The misunderstanding has arisen, because the Oriental
language of compliment and hyperbole has been taken too literally,
Dupleix appears to have been endowed with an office of high honour
and rather vague functions, which gave him the right to nominate some
CH. XV.
640 Brilliant success of the French. [i750-i
of the petty rulers of the Dekhan and conferred upon him the virtual
control of the Camatic. To attempt an exact definition of the theoretical
jurisdictions of the native Powers in southern India at this time would
be an unprofitable task ; but it may be noted that within the limits of the
alleged grant were the kingdoms of Tanjore, Madura, and Mysore, which
never openly acknowledged the suzerainty of the Nizdm far less that of
Dupleix. Even in the Gamatic, Chanda Sahib was nominal ruler till
his death, though no doubt he occupied much the same position in
relation to the French as the puppet Naw£bs of Bengal did to the
English after 1757. Diipleix claimed that Chanda Sahib was merely
his deputy, and on his death was anxious, instead of appointing a
successor, openly to assume the position himself. From this he was
dissuaded at the time by the saner judgment of Btissy who, foreseeing,
as Dupleix himself curiously seems to have failed to foresee, the relent-
less opposition of the English^ warned him that he was seeking to pluck
the fruit before it was ripe.
When the new ruler of Haidardbdd left Pondicherry in January,
1751, Bussy at the head of a few hundred French troops marched with
him to begin his wonderful and romantic career in the Dekhan. It was
originally intended that he should return so soon as the Subahdar was
established on his throne; but Mozaffar Jang was killed in a skirmish
a few days after their departure, and Bussy with a rather cynical
opportunism set aside the dead man's infant son in favour of Salabat Jang
(the brother of Nasir Jang), who was a prisoner in the camp, conducted
him to HaidardbM, and remained there to defend him against all rivals.
So far the French policy had met with astonishing success. The
grandiose conceptions and striking character of Dupleix had bewitched
the Oriental mind. The English, dazed and sullen, looked on with a sort
of helpless admiration and envy. But there was one exception to the
tale of victory. Mohammad Ali, a connexion of the vanquished Anwar-
ud-din, had fled for refuge into the strong fortress of Trichinopoly. At
length, when they saw Dupleix, the real ruler of the Camatic, and Bussy
paramount at the Court of the Nizdm, the English were forced to realise
that the struggle was one of life of death, and they nerved themselves
to assist the fugitive with money and men. Trichinopoly, with its rocky
citadel dominating the great plain of the Camatic, became henceforward
the centre and rallying-point of all opposition to the French.
It is unnecessary to enter into the details of the confused struggle
that followed. The position was extraordinarily complicated. Two
Western nations, at peace with each other in Europe, waged war nominally
as the allies of native Powers that were in reality their creatures and tools.
At first, some attempt was made to uphold the legal fiction by an agreement
that the English and French forces engaged on opposite sides should not
discharge their muskets at one another ; but it was soon found imprac-
ticable to observe this curious rule of warfare, and all disguise was thrown
1751-3] French progress checked. 541
aside. From time to time the other Powers of the Dekhan were drawn
into the rrUlee, either of necessity, to protect their territories from depre-
dation, or voluntarily, in their desire to fish in troubled waters. The
Rijas of Tan j ore and Mysore, the Pathan Nawdbs of Cuddapah, Savanore,
and Kurnool appeared in arms now on one side now on the other, while
the Marathas were always hovering near the field of strife, ready to take
an unexpected and disconcerting hand in the game. There ensued
kaleidoscopic changes of allegiance, dynastic intrigues, revolutions and
counter-revolutions, while, ever moving to and fro in the confused picture,
may be discerned the brilliant but somewhat sinister figure of the great
Frenchman.
Dupleix reached the zenith of his fortunes in 1761. In the spring,
Trichinopoly was desperately hard pressed ; but dive's famous seizure
and defence of Arcot in the summer, and his victories at Ami and Co-
veripak in the autumn and winter, relieved the tension. The triumphal
course of the French received a decided check in June, 1752, when
JacqueS-Fran^bis Law was forced to surrender to Lawrence and Clive
before Trichinopoly, and their ally Chanda Sahib, who had surrendered
himself to the Tanjorean leader, was put to death. For the next two
years hard and persistent fighting went on in the Dekhan, always
tending to converge on the fortress that dominated the position, Tlie
French were never able to reduce it, and their consequent failure to
extend their control completely over the Carnatic neutralised in great
measure the dazzling success of Bussy in the Dekhan. Slowly and step
by step the English gained the upper hand. Their grip upon the throat
of their foe, at first spasmodic and feeble, increased in power and in-
tensity, till the whole gorgeous fabric of French dominion was dragged
down into the dust. France had no general in India who was a match
for Clive and Lawrence, and of the excellent school of subordinate
officers formed in the war, the Englishmen, Cope, Dalton and Kilpatrick,
proved on the whole superior to Jacques-Fran9ois Law, d'Auteuil, de
Eerjean, and Mainville. It should be added that Saunders, the
Governor of Madras, a man whose fame hardly accords with his deserts,
by his cool, cautious and tenacious policy showed himself no mean
antagonist to Dupleix.
In 1753 even Bussy's influence waned for a time, for he was forced to
recruit his health by a retirement to Masulipatam. It is true that in
the autumn he recovered his position at Court and won for France the
important districts of the Northern Circars extending north of the
Carnatic to the frontiers of Orissa ; but the whole of southern India was
so desolated by the war that for some time but little revenue could be
raised from them. Gradually there grew up a divergence of policy
between Bussy and Dupleix. Bussy was in favour of keeping peace with
the English and of extending French influence rather from Haidardbdd
in the Dekhan than from Pdndicherry in the Carnatic. Since 1752 he
CH. XV.
542 Fall of Dupleioo. — Godeheu's Treaty. [1753-5
had repeatedly utged arguments in favour of a pacification and counselled
Dupleix: to withdraw, if possible, from the labyrinth in which he was
plunged.
The truth; was that the policy of Dupleix, ingenious and imaginative
as it was, had broken down.- His position in 1754 was wellnigh
desperate. He had been beaten in the field ; his troops: were ckmouring
for pay; andhis treasury was empty. He had been compelled himself to
acknowledge the necessity for a respite, and a conference was held with
the English, at Sadras in December, 1753. It proved abortive, mainly
because Dupleix once more raised his claim to be recognised as ruler of
the Camatic in his own person. Meanwhile, both the Companies in
Europe were thoroughly alarmed at the warlike' propensities of their
representatives in India, and, on the initiative of the English, informal
conferences to negotiate a peace were held jn London, 17537-4, by the
Duke of Newcastle and the Earl of Holdemesse, with Duyelaeri a Director
of the French Company, ^.nd the Due de Mirepoix, the French ambassador.
The recall of Dupleix however was not, as the popular rumour of the
time supposed, the direct outcome of a demand from the English Com-
pany accompanied by a ' reciprocal pledge to recall the Governor of
Madras. It was aliready decided upon in France before the conference
could be said to have b^un. Silhouette, the King's Commissary, had
long been opposed to the Governor-General whom he considered a turbu-
lent and dangerous spirit. The news of Law's surrender at Trichinopoly
caused widespread alarm in France, and seemed to justify the warnings
and criticisms of Labourdonnais, whose Memoirs were just then being
given to the world. To all these circumstances, and ,in great measure
to the unwisdom of his own conduct, as will presently be seen, the
supersession of Dupleix was really due. In the summer of 1753, Godeheu,
a Director of the Company, was appointed King's Commissioner to
settle affairs I in India. He was to supersede , Dupleix, and had even
sealed orders to arrest him if he proved coutymacious.
Landing in August, 1754, Godeheu concluded in October a suspen-
sion of arms for three months which was followed in January, 17,55, by
the publication of a provisional Treaty, to be y^lid only if ratified by the
Companies at home. As a matter of fact, it was never formally ratified,
owing , to the outbreak of the Seven Years' War, which occurred before
the necessary steps could be taken in Europe. In the Treaty both
parties agreed to interfere no more in the disputes of native States and
to renounce all Mohammadan dignities and governments. The right of
each nation to various possessions was recognised and defined. Dupleix
sailed for France in October, 1754.
Scorn and contempt have been poured by English and French writers
alike on Godeheu for having surrendered the interests of his country,
and on the administration of Louis XV for not having appreciated and
support^ed Dupleix. Dupleix himself contended that when Godeheu
1754] Godeheu and Dupldx. 643
arrived the position had akeady veered round in favour of the French^
and that, with the reinforcements Godeheu brought with him, he might
have recovered all the ground that had been lost. For this version of
the facts, though it has been widely accepted, there is little evidence.
Though he railed against his successor, Dupleix was forced to admit
that he had no money to pay his army and that financially his whole
condition was desperate. Both sides, for obvious reasons, exaggerated,
in letters home, the strength of the enemy ; but, probably, the French
troops brought by Godeheu were in no sense a match for the war-worn
veterans of the British army, and it is sometimes forgotten that, while
negotiations were going on, an English squadron superior to any French
force on the Indian seas was hovering round the coast. It was, indeed,
the news of the arrival of this fleet which obliged Godeheu to moderate
the higher terms for which he at first stood out. Contemporary English
writers, many of whom were in India at the time, without exception
considered that the Treaty was unduly favourable to the French. The
Pondicherry Council, itself by no means predisposed to favour Godeheu,
recorded an opinion that the Peace was the happiest thing that could
happen to the Company, and expressed astonishment that the English
should acquiesce in it, in view of the advantageous position they held.
The Council declared that the English possessed at least 2500 men,
1150 of whom were soldiers of a royal regiment, powerful allies, and no
lack of money ; they themselves on the other hand had but 1500 troops
— "Dieu sfait quelles troupes'" — ^and were destitute alike of allies and cash.
The Peace indeed can hardly be termed a surrender at all, when
it is remembered that Bussy was left undisturbed at Haidardbid with
his army, and that, while the territorial possessions guaranteed to the
English were assessed at a revenue of J'100,000, those retained by the
French were valued at eight times that amount. There is no need to
postulate particular baseness of soul, or personal enmity, on the part of
Godeheu. He was not a genius; but as a practical man he saw that
something drastic had to be done. He loyally endeavoured to follow
his instructions, brought about a settlement that at least stemmed the
tide of disaster, and earned undying infamy for not achieving the
impossible. His personal relations with the man he had been sent to
supersede, though they had been friends in earlier years, could hardly be
cordial ; but that was at least as much the fault of Dupleix as his own.
Dupleix indeed was largely responsible for his own recall. He had
treated the authorities at home in a way that no body of men could be
expected to pardon. On more than one occasion he deliberately with-
held important information, and, though he promptly informed them of
his victories, he almost invariably omitted to report his defeats ; his
despatches, for instance, made no mention of Clive's capture and defence
of Arcot, The truth ultimately reached the ears of the French Govern-
ment, usually through English sources, and it is hardly surprising that
OH, xy.
644 Financial policy of Dupldoc. [1741-53
in time a deep distrust was engendered of his whole policy. Moreover, they
had before them no clear account of what that policy was. The view is
baseless which represents Dupleix as dreaming of empire even when at
Chandernagore, and formulating a definite plan to acquire dominion
through political and dynastic intrigue. He entered upon this path
only in 1749, and it was not till 1763 that he fully realised the possi-
bilities of his schemes and drew up a full statement for the information
of the Company. This despatch was not received in France till six
months after Godeheu had sailed for India. When it arrived, the
Government reversed the order for the recall of Dupleix; but, before the
news could reach him, he had already embarked for home. Nor is it true
to say that Dupleix was left unsupported. In four years he received more
than four thousand men. He complained that these recruits were the
scum of Paris and the sweepings of the gaols ; but most of the English
troops were originally di'awn from similar sources, and it was only by
constant warfare that they were welded into a capable fighting force.
But, above all, the Company at home had a right to be alarmed by his
management of the finances. They heard impressive accounts of territorial
possessions and revenues made over to them by native Powers ; but it
would be a complete mistake to suppose that any appreciable amount of
such sums filtered through to them. While its servants were dealing with
millions of rupees, the Company was rapidly approaching bankruptcy,
Dupleix deliberately formulated the doctrine that, for the French at any
rate, the trade with India was a failure, and that it was better to enter
upon a career of conquest. The question is how he raised the funds to
maintain the costly operations of the war. Recent research has dis-
proved the legend, which his Memoirs supported, that he had accumulated
immense riches at Chandernagore. In 1741 when he was appointed to
Pondicherry, his fortune on his own admission was not large enough for
him to retire upon in comfort. Indeed the largest private fortune would
have gone but a little way to maintain his costly system of subsidised
alliances. From 1751 most of the revenues of the Carnatic passed
through his hands ; but they barely sufiiced to finance the ruinous war
against Mohammad Ali, He advanced large sums from the grants and
^agirs (revenues derived from land) made to him by native Princes, which
he had only a very doubtful right to hold at all, and charged the loans
to the account of the Company. Now, if his efforts had been crowned
with success, it is possible that at some future time the Company might
have had large sums to receive ; but the fatal flaw in his policy was that
it did not prove to be self-supporting. He staked everything on victory
and he was defeated. When Godeheu asked him for his assets he could
only talk vaguely of revenues and grants, and hand over bonds signed
by native rulers for large amounts which he had lent them. Many
of his creditors were obviously incapable of paying anything. Others,
who perhaps had it in their power, showed little inclination to do so,
1V54] Character of Dupldx. 645
and it was not easy to see how pressure could be put upon them except
at the cost of more fighting. In many cases the revenues from ceded
territory existed only on paper and were never realised. The peasants
had been ruined by the long war. The devastation in the Carnatic was
terrible, and it was some time before the proper contributions were
received even from the Northern Circars, the most valuable of the new
acquisitions. Bussy's army was exceedingly costly ; the rate of pay was
princely, and the commander himself was said to have become one of the
richest subjects in iEurope.
The net result of it all was that in 1754 the treasury was empty,
while in addition Dupleix claimed that the Company owed him more than
thirty lakhs of rupees. When Dupleix demanded assignments on future
revenues to satisfy his private claims on the Company, Godeheu, though
he granted him a sufficient sum for his immediate needs, referred the
whole matter to the authorities at home. Dupleix inveighed fiercely
against him, but it is not easy to see what else he could have done.
With all his great qualities, Dupleix had many serious defects of
temperament. He was sanguine to the point of wilful blindness. Even
the bold and enterprising Bussy was staggered at the magnitude and
multiplicity of his plans. His -refusal to recognise a defeat often carried
him to an unlooked-for success, but sometimes turned a check into a
disaster. He was lacking iii the quality of restraint, the clear apprecia-
tion of what was practical, the power to withhold his hand, which was
characteristic of his great rival, Lord Clive. In all his schemes there was
something of the gambler's rashness, the gambler's desire to advance
from success to success, staking at each throw the whole of his past gains.
He seldom stopped to concentrate his forces or conserve his conquests.
He was inclined to expect impossibilities from his military commanders,
and, his enmity once roused, was relentless and linforgetting. Yet, with
all necessary qualifications, he must still be regarded eis one of the ablest
Europeans that have ruled in the East. He did anticipate in many
ways the policy and the methods that were to carry Great Britain to
the overlordship of India. His defence of Pondicherry, the ascendancy
he won with the native Powers, his faculty of impressing the Asiatic
imagination, his dauntless demeanour in the face of danger, the almost
superstitious dread he inspired in the English, all these things testify to
his great capacity.
Dupleix returned to fulminate in memoirs and protests against the
Company. He wrote an account of his life and actions from the stand-
point of the past few years. Unintentionally perhaps in part, he
antedated the conception of his political schemes. He represented the
whole of his sojourn in India as a careful and logical preparation for the
acquisition of dominion. Every fact was wrested to fit into the picture,
every incident nloulded to a preconceived theory. Dupleix has won for
himself the sympathies of posterity, and the protests of Jacques-Fran9ois
0. M. H. VI. CH. XV. 33
646 Fate of Dupldx. — Bussy in the Dekhan. [1756-8
Law and Godeheu againfet his version of the facts have gone unheeded ;
but, the nearer we get to his own time, the less conviction do his writings
seem to have carried even among those who were most hostile to the
administration of Louis XV. Yet the treatment meted out to, him was
ungenerous in the extreme. In view of their own misfortunes, the
Company could, perhaps, hardly be expected to pay in full the large claims
he put forward ; but he should have been voted a generous pension to
pass his declining years in comfort. He had spent great sums without
authorisation, it is true ; but he might have kept them for himself as
others did. If he erred, it was from no ignoble motive or despicable
aim. The glory and honour of France were ever before his eyes. He
was treated with cold neglect, his frantic protests went unheeded, and
his lot was only preferable to that of Labourdonnais and Lally, whose
rewards were the Bastille and the block.
Bussy maintained his position in the Dekhan till 1768, but like the
English a few years later he found that in the anarchic condition of
southern India his alliances with native Powers often placed him in
embarrassing situations. In 1756, when , before Savanore, he received a
formal dismissal from the service of the Niz£m, and began his retreat to
Masulipatam with a predatory army of JMarathas hanging on his rear.
Turning upon his pursuers at Haidar^b^d, he seized a strong position
close to the city, and effected a junction with Law, who had been
marching to his relief. He was soon afterwards reconciled to Salabat
Jang, but never quite recovered his former influence.
In the short interval between Godeheu's Peace and the commencement
of renewed hostilities occurred the extraordinary series of events in
Bengal which, breaking like a thunder-clap ,upon the easy-going serenity
of the European settlements, temporarily ruined Calcutta, taught the
English their full strength in the efforts they made to recover their
position, put an end to the power of the native government, and termi-
nated the political and military existence of the French and Dutch in
north-eastern India. It wiU be convenient, however, to reserve these
events for the next section, and to complete here the account of the
Anglo-French struggle in the Carnatic. The declaration of the Seven
Years' War in 1756 determined the French Government to strike a
decisive blow at the British settlements. The attempt was a formidable
one, and, had it been better timed or better led, the results to England
might have been extremely serious. Count de LaUy, son of an Irish
refugee, who was placed in command, had distinguished himself on many
European battle-fields, and played a considerable part in the Stewart
rising of 1745. A brave soldier, a capable general, conscientious and
incorruptible, he was yet one of the worst men that could have been
selected for the post. Utterly without tact or pliability in deahog
either with men or circumstances, he proved singularly incapable of
adapting himself to the special conditions of Indian warfare. He fell
1757-8] Lally in southern India. 647
out with de Leyrit, the Governor of Pondicherry, with d'Ach^ who
commanded the fleet, and with Bussy who should have been his most
zealous coadjutor. He was hot-tempered, harsh to his subordinates, and
intolerant of advice. The expedition was a long record of misfortunes
and blunders, and at every point the general's unhappy temperament
exerted a baleful influence on the trend of events. The vanguard under
de Soupire arrived in September, 1757 ; but the succeeding months were
frittered away in unimportant operations. Lally, with the main body,
only reached the coast of Coromandel in April, 1758, after a twelve
months' voyage, by which time the English had already warded off the
worst of the critical situation in Bengal. Nevertheless, the French for
the moment possessed a superiority of force which, under happier circum-
stances, might have been employed with great eifect. The English
admiral, Pocock, though he inflicted severe loss on the main division of
the French fleet in a drawn engagement ofi' Negapatam, was unable to
bar their passage to Pondicherry. An initial success was won by the
prompt siege and capture of Fort St David, after a bombardment of
eighteen days. The defence was feebly conducted, and earned the strong
censure and bitterly expressed contempt of Clive, who was anxiously
watching the course of events from Bengal. Lally 's next objective was
Madras ; but some very fatal features, unhappily characteristic of French
history in India, now made their appearance. There was a complete
lack of cordial cooperation between the land and sea forces, and the civil
and military authorities. The French admiral was cautious to excess,
and to his spiritless eflforts to second Lally the latter with justice
attributed much of his failure. There was the usual want of money.
The Governor of Pondicherry declared that he was almost totally
destitute of funds to maintain the war. Lally retorted that, if this were
true, it was solely due to the corruption and mismanagement of the
Administration — a reply which, though it contained a lamentable amount
of truth, did not smooth his path in the future. The only expedient
for raising the necessary supplies appeared to be to demand from the
Rija of Tanjore the payment of a bond for fifty-six lakhs of rupees
that had come into the possession of the French. Marching on Tanjore,
Lally bombarded the town for five days ; but, as his ammunition failed,
he was forced to retreat without the money and with a serious loss of
prestige. D'Ache, after fighting another fierce engagement with the
Enghsh off' Coleroon, left the Coromandel coast for Mauritius, in spite
of the most earnest remonstrances of Lally and the whole Pondicherry
Council. The English henceforward held the command of the sea, and
this fact alone made the blockade of an open port like Madras a hope-
less undertaking. Yet in preparation for it, Lally summoned Bussy
from his post at HaidardbM, an action which proved calamitous from
every point of view. The Nizim was mortally ofi'ended, and French
influence at his Court was now at an end. Bussy proved himself an
CH. XV. 36—2
648 Forde's campaign. — Siege of Madras. [i 758-65
unwilling colleague ; and, though it was not easy to work harmoniously
with Lally, he failed, in a task that was thoroughly uncongenial, to do
justice to his great abilities. There was indeed a fundamental difference
in the policy of the two men. Lally's aim was a concentration of all
available force for an irresistible attack on the British possessions one
by one, risking, as Clive said, the whole for the whole. Bussy, now as
ever, clung to the dream, which he had done so much to realise, of
French dominion built up on a system of native alliances and supported
by a resident at the Nizdm's Court, commanding an army of picked
men. Conflans was left by Bussy in occupation of the Northern Circars ;
but he proved utterly unable to cope with the diversion in that quarteif
planned by Clive, who, in the midst of his multitudinous anxieties in
Bengal, played a preponderating part in the defeat of France in southern
India. Realising the assured superiority given to England by heir
supremacy upon the seas, he had definitely made up his mind that the
days of French political power in India were numbered, though he
stood alone in thinking so. AVhile, therefore, he steadily refused, in
the face of strong pressure, to jeopardise his work in Bengal by sending
the Madras contingents back to that Presidency, he despatched Forde,
one of his best officers, in October, 1758, with a picked force from
Calcutta, to support a petty R^ja who had rebelled against French domi-
nation in the Northern Circars. Forde defeated Conflans at Condore in
December, 1758, and carried Masulipatam by storm in April of the
following year. The French were finally driven from that part of India,
and subsequently, in 1765, Clive obtained from the Emperor an imperial
grant making over the Circars to the Company.
In the meantime, December, 1758, Lally advanced against Madras.
The isisue, as Clive confidently declared, was predestined from the outset.
In the respite they had giained by the failuire of the French attack
on Tanjore, the English had provisioned and strengthened their fortress.
The defence was ably conducted by Lawrence and Pigot; and on Feb-
ruary 16 the sails of a British fleet were descried standing in towards the
Roads. The French immediately abandoned the siege ; but, though they
had parried the assault of the enemy, it was some time before the English
felt themselves strong enough to take the offensive. D'Ache made a
feeble attempt to intervene from Mauritius, but after fighting another
indecisive battle with Pocock retired finally from the scene. LaUy, who
was no mean tactician, prolonged his resistance for another two years, but
was gradually isolated and beaten to his knees. The campaign at first
went on languidly; but, in October, 1759, Eyre Coote took over the
command of the English forces from the hands of the veteran Lawrence.
The position of the French was now deplorable. They were absolutely
without money. The troops were in a periodical state of open mutiny.
In January, 1760, Coote decisively defeated Lally at Wandiwash, when
Bussy was taken prisoner. While the beaten general stood on the
1760-1816] End of French dominion in India. 649
defensive at Valdore, Coote, one by one, reduced the French fortresses in
the Camatic. His operations were checked for a time by a French
alliance with Haidar Ali, the able usurper who had just estabhshed
himself upon the throne of Mysore. But a Maratha invasion obliged
him speedily to return to his own country, and LaUy was at last
beaten back within the walls of Pondicherry. The siege began in
September ; all hope of relief vanished with the appearance in the offing
of a powerful British fleet ; and in January, 1761, Lally was forced to
surrender from lack of provisions.
The fall of Pondicherry was the end of French dominion in India.
Lally was taken to England as a prisoner of war, but was released on
parole to meet the charges made against him in France. After a trial
lasting two years, though he had been guilty of nothing more serious
than errors of judgment, he was made the scapegoat of the popular fury
for the colonial losses of France in the Seven Years' War, and was
beheaded. Ten years afterwards, this iniquitous sentence was formally
reversed by decree of the King's Council. Pondicherry and the
other French possessions were restored by the Peace of Paris in 1763,
with their fortifications in ruins. Mohammad Ali was recognised as
Nawdb of the Camatic, and Salabat Jang as Subahdar of the Dekhan.
Largely through the instrumentality of Clive, always the evil star of
the French in India, two clauses had been inserted in the Treaty
limiting the armed force they might maintain on the Coromandel coast
and excluding them altogether from Bengal and the Northern Circars
except in the capacity of merchants. Henceforth, all French settlements
in India were the easy prey of British armies so soon as war had been
declared in Europe. Pondicherry was once more captured in 1778 and
restored by the Peace of Versailles in 1783, retaken in 1793, and,
though nominally restored again at the Peace of Amiens in 1802, not
finally given back till 1816. The one formidable attempt of France to
regain her old ascendancy in 1781-3 will be narrated in its proper
place. With that exception, her influence henceforward was only repre-
sented by diplomatic emissaries or military adventurers in the Coiui;s
and camps of native rulers. The glamour of her great traditions, the
memory of her wonderful and short-lived span of power remained as
a vague menace to haunt the path of British statesmen and prove a will
o' the wisp to more than one opponent of British rule.
The French Company had its privileges suspended by a royal decree
of August 13, 1769. The trade to India, subject to certain restrictions,
was henceforth laid open, and the settlements in the East passed directly
under the control of the Crown. French thought of the day was all
against the maintenance of a trading body dependent upon a state-
granted monopoly. The Government had commissioned Morellet, one
of the ablest of the Physiocrats, to conduct an enquiry into their financial
condition, and his verdict was one of condemnation. He was no doubt
650 Reasons for French failure. [1744-8O
employed to make out a particular case ; but in none of the contemporary
replies that his pamphlet brotught forth, though one was from the able
pen of Necker, is any serious attempt found to discredit his chief facts.
No sound economist can deny his main conclusions : that a commercial
enterprise which is not self-supporting ought to be abandoned, and that
there are infinitely more legitimate and more important uses to which
the public revenue can be put than in maintaining a Company which is
bankrupt if left to itself.
Assuredly not the least of the causes of England's success was the
greater prosperity of her East India Company. According to Morellet
the French Company entered upon the war in 1744 with resources and
credit already seriously impaired. From that date the number of vessels
returning from the Indies dropped td about a fourth of their previous
number, while there seems to have been a complete cessation of capital
sent from France. Though there was a slight improvement in this respect
after the Peace of 1748, the downward tendency was rapidly accelerated
after 1751. On the other hand, the commerce of the English throve
during the war. Aftej;1744 the number of vessels returning from India
and the amount of imports actually increased. In the very year of the
outbreak of the war the Company made a new loan to the Government
of ^1,000,000, in return for which their privileges were extended from
1766 to 1780.
The French Company was so closely connected with the Government
that it was not immune from the lethargy and demoralisation which crept
into all state departments during the reign of Louis XV. While much,
therefore, of the responsibility for the loss of the Indian possessions of
Prance must be laid on the Ministers of the King, it is only fair to bear
in mind that the French Government had never been able to rely upon
a strong and self-sustaining commercial interest. If it was in some
measure responsible for the Company's fall, it had also been almost
wholly responsible for its creation. The English East India Company
at this time had no official connexion with the State, but many of its
Directors sat in Parliament and were able to press its interests on the
attention of the ministry. As a result, the Company was neither
isolated from nor cramped by state interference, and until the latter
end of the century was lifted above the turmoil of party politics.
To sum up, therefore, it may be said that England's success was due
to a variety of causes — the greater commercial prosperity of her trade
with India, her superiority in the hard hand to hand fighting in southern
India, the severely practical genius of Lord Clive, her general ascendancy
on the sea which became particularly marked during the Seven Years'
War, the wealth and resources she was able to draw after 1757 from her
occupation of Bengal, and, lastly, the greater vigour and capacity of her
national Government, which, less entangled than that of France in
European wars, had the leisure to direct its chief energies at a most
critical time to the field of maritime and colonial expansion.
1756] The English in Bengal. 661
(3) CLIVE AND WARREN HASTINGS.
In the rich alluvial plain of Bengal, with its wide waterways, fertile
fields, industrious, peaceful and pliant population, a European nation
with resources drawn from a sea-borne commerce was destined, when the
first steps had once been taken, to advance towards dominion more
rapidly than elsewhere. Yet this fact was not at first apparent. Till
past the middle of the eighteenth century the European settlements in
Bengal were far more submissive than those in western and southern
India to the overlordship of native Powers. They bowed before the
majestic pretensions of the imperial Coiu-t of Delhi, even when the
suzerainty of the Moghul had become a mere shadow. The War of the
Austrian Succession ran its course without any outbreak of hostilities
between Calcutta and Chandemagore, The, dynastic wars that ensued
on the Coromandel coast were brought to, a close before the peace was
even broken in Bengal. The chief settlements of the English, French
and Dutch, all built within thirty miles of one another, pursued their
avocations in peace without a thought of violating the traditional
neutrality of the province^ . till the native Government itself drew the
sword by its savage attack upon one of themselves.
The last strong Subahdar or Nawdb of Bengal, Ali Verdi Khan, who
possessed a very shrewd insjght iiito the real meaning of the English
occupation, died in April, 1756. He was succeeded by Sirdj-udTdauld, a
youth of about twenty years of age, weak, vicious, and a degenerate.
Both the English and the French at this time, knowing that war was
imminent between the two countries, were fortifying their respective
settlements. The new Nawab sent them orders to desist. The French
succeeded in quieting his suspicions, but the English failed to make their
peace with, him. They had already incurred his displeasure by refusing
to give up a fugitive of whom he was in quest, and by expelling, through
some misunderstanding, the messenger who came to demand his surrender.
Siraj-ud-daulA promptly determined to extirpate the English, who were
recognised by his ablest advisers as the most formidable of the European
nations. He seized the factory of Kasimbazar, and news soon reached
Calcutta that he was in fuU march upon that settlement with an army
variously estimated as consisting of 30,000 to 50,000 men. The European
stations in Bengal at this time were weakly defended. In all of them
long years of peace had brought a,bout a similar condition of affairs.
The forts had fallen into disrepair, warehouses, godowns, and luxurious
private houses had grown up round the ramparts, blocking; the fire of
the guns and affording cover to an enemy. There had been mismanage-
ment of fimds in the past and failure to carry out the recommendations
of military experts ; but for this state of things, in Calcutta at any rate,
responsibility lay, far heavier on the Presidency than on the Company at
CH. XV.
652 The Black Hole of Calcutta.-^Eecapture. [1756^7
home. In Calcutta the regular European garrison did not amount to
more than 260 men, and even that was double thq French force at
Chandemagore. In spite of this, had the spirit of Clive animated the
defence, a sturdy resistance might have been offered to the Nawib's
unwieldy army. But the siege of Calcutta proved one of the least
creditable episodes in the history of British India. Drake, the Governor,
was a weak man respected neither by his colleagues nor by the native
inhabitants. Holwell, the only man of ability on the Council, was
personally unpopular. The attack began on June 16. On the 18th the
women and children were embarked on the ships in the river, and the
next day, in a moment of impremeditated pusillanimity, Drake, the
military commander of the garrison, and some others, followed them on
board. The abandoned garrison, haiving watched with mingled rage and
astonishment the fleet drop down the river below the town, held out
under Holwell for two days longer ; but, as their frantic signals to the
fleet to return met with no response, they were forced to siurender on
June 20. That night, by an act of stupid brutality, one hundred and
forty-six English prisoners were thrust into the notorious Black Hole, or
military punishment cell, of the fortress. It was the hottest season of
the Indian summer, and next mbmiiig, after suffering indescribable
torments, but twenty-three miserable wretches, Holwell amongst them,
crawled out alive. For this atrocity the Naw£b was not persohally
responsible ; but he showed a revolting callousness after the event, and
made no attempt to punish the perpetrators. Meanwhile, the fugitives
from the siege, huddled together in misery and privation, their plight
further embittered by mutual reproaches and recriminations, were await-
ing relief at Fulta, twenty miles lower down the river.
When the news reached Fort St George, the authorities there after
long discussion decided, in spite of the imminence of war with France,
to make the recovery of Calcutta their first care. It was fortunate for
them that the year 1756 witnessed the temporary eclipse of Bussy's
power in the Dekhan, for he was thus prevented from either attacking
Madras when seriously depleted of troops, or marching to support the
Nawdb of Bengal. Clive, just returned from England to assume office
as Governor of Fort St David, was placed at the head of the land forces,
while Admiral Watson was in command of the fleet. The expedition,
which consisted of five men-of-war, carrying 900 European and 1500 native
troops, started on October 16. They reached the Hooghly after a difficult
and tedious voyage, sailed boldly up the river, though without pilots-^a
difficult and hazardous feat of navigation — and relieved the fugitives at
Fulta in December, Calcutta was retaken on January 2, 1757, and
Hooghly a week later. Sirdj-ud-daul£ once more drew towards Calcutta
with a large army. After a sharp fight^ in which a dense fog neutralised
the generalship of Clive, the Nawdb agi-eed on February 9 to conclude
an offensive and defensive alliance with the English, The Company's forts
1767-61] Surrender of Chandernagore. 553
and former privileges were restored, and permission was given them to
coin money and fortify Calcutta.
Clive at this period had to direct his course with the greatest cir-
cumspection. The difficulties that faced him were tremendous. News
having reached India that war was declared between England and France,
he was receiving urgent calls from the Government of Madras to return
with his army to that Presidency, and was obliged to take upon himself
the serious responsibility of refusing the summons. His relations with
Watson were far from cordial, and on one occasibn, in a dispute as to the
government of Calcutta after the recapture, the Admiral even threatened
to open fire upon him. Watson was a brave, frank and able man ;
but as a King's officer he considered that his main duty was to act
against the French, and he hardly cared to conceal his contempt for the
Company's affairs. Clive's instinct told him that either Chandernagore
must be captured or the French bound to inaction by a very stringent
agreement. This, more than anything else, induced him to consent to a
peace with Sir^j-ud-daul£ which otherwise could hardly have been con-
sidered satisfactory; it was essential before aU things to have a breathing
space. After some futile negotiations for a neutrality in which neither
side was sincere, Chandernagore was attacked and forced to surrender.
On land, Clive drove in the outposts and kept the garrison employed so
as to prepare the way for the main attack by the fleet. The French
made a gallant defence, two hundred of their small force being either
killed or wounded; but they were quite unable to repel Watson's brilliant
onslaught from the river. The English too suffered heavily, in the flag-
ship every commissioned officer, except Watson himself and one other,
was either killed or wounded. A considerable portion of the garrison
escaped to join Jean Law, the French commander at Kasimbazar.
Pursued over the Oudh boundary. Law in an adventurous march made
his way to Lucknow and Delhi, and twice within the next two years
aided the Moghul Emperor to invade Bengal, finally surrendering to the
English with the honours of war in 1761.
Meanwhile, English relations with the Nawdb were in a most \m-
satisfactory state. Their demands upon him were constantly increasing
as they gradually felt their strength. He had only been kept quiet
dtu"ing the attack on Chandernagore by the exercise of great adroitness
on Clive's part. It was known that he was giving his protection to the
French, and was eager for Bussy to bring his army from southern India
to Bengal. Despairing of any firm settlement while Sirdj-ud-dauld
remained on the throne, the English, contrary to their original inten-
tions, were driven to contemplate a renewal of the war. A revolution
at Court was obviously imminent, for Sirdj-ud-dauld had few friends, and
to Clive and his colleagues it seemed better that they should seek to
guide events than merely hope to profit by their issue. A conspiracy
was arranged to dethrone the Nawdb and set in his place Mir Jafar,
654 Conspiracy with Mir Jafar. — Battle of Plassey, [i757
a great noble of his Court. At a critical point in the negotiations
Omichand, an influential native employed as a go-between by the English,
attempted to levy blackmail by demanding a disproportionate amount
of the plunder expected to accrue to the conspirators, under threat of
divulging the whole conspiracy. At the instigation of Clive, who con-
sidered that " art and policy were warrantable in defeating the purposes
of such a villain," two drafts of the treaty with Mir Jafar were prepared.
One, written on red paper, guaranteed to Omichand the sum he demanded,
and was shown to him to quiet his suspicions. The other, which was
ultimately signed by Mir Jafar, omitted this stipulation. The fictitious
document was signed iby Clive and the members of the Secret Committee;
and, when Watson, who, as has been well said, played throughout the
transaction the part of a disgusted spectator, refused to append his
signature, Clive directed that it should be forged. The agreement with
Mir Jafar ceded to the British all the privileges and rights which had
been promised by SirAj-ud-dauld. Heavy compensation was exacted for
the loss of Calcutta : one million sterling was to be paid to the Company,
and half that sum to the European inhabitants. By a private arrange-
ment large sums as gratuities were guaranteed to the members of Comicil
and the Commander-in-chief; Clive was to receive in all ,£234,000 ;
Watts, the resident at MurshidAbdd, i&117,000; and others in pro-
portion.
Meanwhile Sirdj-ud-dauld, accompanied by the traitor Mir Jafar, had
marched to the famous grove of Plassey with an army estimated at
50,000 men. Clive advanced northwards from Chandernagore. Before
crossing the river which parted him from the enemy's position, he held
a comicil of war to discuss the advisability of immediate action. He
himself voted in the negative, and was supported by the majority of his
officers. The minority, headed by Eyre Coote, were in favour of the
bolder course. The Council was dismissed ; but, after an hour's solitary
meditation, Clive announced that he had changed his mind and intended
to fight. He crossed the river, June 9,% and reached Plassey an hour
after midnight. The next morning he drew up his small army, consisting
of about 900 Europeans and 2300 other troops, behind an embankment
which defended him from the enemy's artillery. The two armies began
to cannonade each other soon after daybreak, and continued to do so
till eleven o'clock, when a torrential downpour of rain caused the fire to
slacken. At two o'clock the enemy, having been repulsed in a charge,
showed signs of wavering, and Kilpatrick, in the temporary absence of
Clive, ordered an advance. Clive, hastenii^ up, at first reprimanded him
severely; but, seeing that the enemy were in motion to evacuate the field,
he ended by putting himself at the head of the charge. The Nawdb's
army, realising that they were betrayed by Mir Jafar's contingent, which
had taken no part in the action, and suspecting treachery on all sides,
now streamed from their entrenchments in hopeless rout across the plain.
1757-9] Plassey and afier. 655
Such was the battle of Plassey, which set the seal on Clive's military fame
and brought him his peerage, though he had fought many actions which
more severely tested, and more signally proved, his powers of leadership.
The English lost nineteen men killed in action, and the enemy not more
than five hundred. It was not a battle but a panic, and there was hardly
any fighting worth speaking of. The real key to Clive's strategy is to be
found in the fact that he had determined not to attack the Nawdb's huge
army with his tiny force, but to entrench himself till the conspirators
openly showed their hand. He was disconcerted for a time by the
ambiguous attitude of Mir Jafar, who seemed also to wait upon the event,
or who had perhaps been shamed into inaction by the deluded Sirij-
ud-dauld's last desperate and pathetic appeal to his honour, dive's
momentary anger, when Kilpatrick ordered the final advance, was due
to his belief that his preconceived plan was imperilled. The utter
demoralisation of the enemy gave him the victory sooner than he had
dared to hope, and he was quick as always to see and profit by the
sudden change of circumstances.
After the battle Mir Jafar, in spite of his equivocal attitude, was
hailed l^ Clive as the new Nawdb of Bengal. Sirdj-ud-daulA fell into
the hands of Miran, Mir Jafar's worthless son, and was put to death.
On the examination of the NawAb's treasury at MurshidAbAd, it was
found to contain only one and a half million sterling, while the total
amount to be paid over to the English was ^2,340,000. It was there-
fore arranged that the payments should be made by instalments. The
wretched Omichand was at the same time enlightened as to the
deception that had been practised on him.
After establishing Mir Jafar at Murshiddbdd and quelling several
insurrections against his authority, Clive returned to Calcutta to find
that a despatch had arrived from home for the appointment of a
"rotation" Government. A Council of ten was nominated, of whom
the four seniors were to preside in rotation for four months at a time.
The despatch was written before the Directors had been fuUy informed
of Plassey and its results. The Council accordingly decided to deviate
from the instructions given, and oflered the Presidency to Clive who
after some hesitation accepted it. In January, 1759, he successfiiUy
defended Mir Jafar from a dangei'ous coalition between a rebellious son
of the Emperor and the Nawdb Wazir of Oudh. It was in return for
this service, on some rather indehcate prompting from Clive himself, that
Mir Jafar made over to him the famous jagir, Consisting of the rents
paid by the East India Company for the districts held by them south of
Calcutta and amounting to about ^£'30,000 a year.
The extraordinary change in the status of the English affected their
relations with the. Dutch, who had always acquiesced willingly in the
sovereignty of the Nawdb while he was an independent Prince, but who
now discerned in the shadow of his throne the form of an old and hated
656 Defeat of the Dutch. [I759-60
European rival. Above all, they rebelled against the right granted to
the English to search all vessels in the Hooghly, and to monopolise the
pilot service. Accordingly, after some secret correspondence with the
Nawib, in which he played a very equivocal part, they appeared in the
Ganges with a strong armament. Clive believed that to allow another
European nation to establish itself in force in Bengal was, in the rmsettled
state of the province, tantamount to a surrender of the whole position
so hardly won. On the other hand, to offer armed resistance when there
was peace between the two nations was no doubt an utterly lawless
proceeding. Yet he did not shrink from this extreme step, declaring
that a public man must sometimes act with a halter round his neck.
The Dutch foolisMy afforded him a plausible pretext by seizing some
English merchant vessels. He promptly assailed them with all his
strength ; their seven ships were captured, and their land forces utterly
defeated by Forde. The Dutch at Chinsm-a were forced to surrender,
and were only permitted to retain their settlement in Bengal on
terms that robbed their rivalry for the future of all terrors for the
EngUsh.
Clive left India in February, 1760. To few subjects of the British
Crown has it been given to accomplish a more wonderful task than the
one he had compressed into the space of three years. The dynastic war
in southern India had revealed in him a bom leader of men and a
tactician of high order ; the revolution in Bengal justified his claim to
the greater qualities of the strategist and the statesman. In 1756 the
Company had been driven with contumely from theii* chief settlement.
Clive not only reinstated them, but utterly transformed the whole
position. From being the obsequious servants of the Nawdb the British
became his masters. Their influence for all practical purposes was now
supreme throughout Bengal, which in its wider signification included
Behar and Orissa. Clive had captured the chief settlement of the French
in that province, materially helped to ruin their power in the Dekhan,
and reduced the Dutch to submission.
But the manner in which these brilliant results were achieved is
more open to criticism. The whole episode of the war with Sirdj-ud-
dauld falls below the standard which a Western nation should observe
in dealing with an alien civilisation. The English made a fatal mistake
when, in the words of Watts, they determined to "play the game in
the Oriental style." They were thus beguiled into a course of action
from which they would probably have recoiled, had every step been clear
from the beginning. The fact that Clive, whose natural instincts were
all in favour of frankness, was driven to write a " soothing " letter to
the Nawdb, long after he had decided to ruin him, is typical of the moral
degeneration which had overtaken British policy. The incident of the
fictitious treaty with Oraichand and the forging of Admiral Watson's
name is but a detail in a course of action that was stained throughout
1757-65] CHve's policy. 567
with dissimulation. The first false step was taken (it was no doubt easy
to see this after the event) in meddling with a dynastic plot at all. It
would have been far preferable to defeat Sirdj-ud-dauM in open warfare
and then set up a successor. But Clive and his colleagues did not realise
the Naw^b's weakness, prompt fiction of some kind was necessary, and
the supreme difficulty of the position extenuates their policy, even though
forming no adequate defence of it.
The private arrangement with Mir Jafar for donations to individuals
cannot be justified, even though there be taken into account the lower
standard in all questions of public action and private profit which was
then universally prevalent. Technically speaking, there was no breach
of the law, for the regulation forbidding the receipt of presents from
native Powers was not passed till 1765. But the fact that the Council
concealed the transaction from the Court of Directors shows that their
consciences were uneasy. A palliation was subsequently found in the
meagre official salaries paid to the Company's servants at this time. It
is true that nominally they were very low; but, with allowances and the
permission to engage in private trade, the real uemimeration was probably
higher than that of the Indian civilian of to-day. The Directors, as
subsequent events were to prove, had some reason for their contention
that higher salaries would not exempt their servants from temptation.
Verelst, under whose rule corruption reached such a terrible height,
received in salary and commissions ,£23,000 a year, besides permission
to trade on his own account— remuneration on an infinitely more
magnificent scale, considering the territory over which he ruled, than
that enjoyed by the Viceroy of all India.
Clive's own defence is well known. He declared that he considered
presents not dishonourable when they were received from an inde-
pendent Prince as the price of services rendered without detriment to
the Company. But it can hardly be said that any real independence
was left to a man in Mir Jafar's position, who was supported entirely
by British arms. Clive also claimed to have informed the authorities
at home that the Nawdb's generosity had made his fortune easy; but
a vague and incidental statement of this kind could scarcely give an
adequate idea of the huge sums involved, and, when the Directors
disclaimed the intention of objecting to any gratuity made to indi-
viduals, they could have had no inkling that these gratuities nearly
equalled the whole amount awarded to the Company itself for the loss
of Calcutta.
The additional gift of the jagir was rendered the more invidious in
that it consisted of the quit-rent which the Company was bound to pay
to the Nawdb for their territorial possessions in Bengal. Clive was man
of the world enough to know that his position as at once servant and
landlord of the Company was an impossible one. The surprising thing
is, not that the Directors should ultimately have withheld payment of
658 Presents from native Powers. [ivsY-va
this huge annuity, but that they should have acquiesced in it so long.
There was sound sense in their contention that it was inadvisable for
them to be tributary to their own servant. It is true that they played
their part exceedingly ill; they allowed Clive to retain the jagir till
they had begun to quarrel with him, and then endeavoured to withdraw
it on purely technical grounds to which Clive could, and did, make
a good technical reply.
A more serious charge against Clive is that he had, by accepting
these presents, seriously impaired the stability of his own work. It is
probably true that at the time of the arrangement with Mir Jafar the
English believed his wealth to be boundless. The most ridiculous
reports were current as to the contents of the treasury at Murshiddbd,d,
which were said to amount to ^40,000,000. After Plassey the sum was
found to be but a million and a half, while the total demands of the
English, including both the sums that were avowed and those that were
concealed, amounted to more than two and a quarter millions. Yet on
this discovery no remission of any kind was granted. Mir Jafar was
obliged to make assignations on his revenue and pledge his credit for years
to come. The whole administration was tsrippled and could not be
properly carried on, so that a part at least of the responsibility for the
notorious misgovemment of Bengal during the next few years must be
shifted to the shoulders of Clive and his colleagues. Eyre Coote and
several members of the Council declared at the time of Mir Jafar^s deposi-
tion that his want of money proceeded, not from any fault of his own,
but from the distracted condition in which the country had been left after
Clive's departure. Clive's famous statement before the Select Committee
of Parliament in 1773, that, when he recollected the gold, silver, and
jewels in the treasury at Murshiddbdd, he stood astonished at his own
moderation, must be set side by side with the fact that the wealth there
accumulated was found by himself at the time to be insufficient to meet
even the first drafts of the new reign. At the parliamentary enquiry
Clive was asked whether, at the time the Jagir was granted, he
knew that the NawAb was surrounded by troops clamouring for pay.
He answered, yes ; but he added as some sort of; explanation that it was
the custom of the country to keep soldiers in arrears. Again, he was
asked if he knew that the Nawdb's goods and furniture were publicly
sold to pay the Company the sums stipulated in the treaty, and again he
had to answer in the affifmative.
Clive's responsibility was, of course, much less than that of the men
who, under Vansittart, Spencer, Verelst, and Cartier, lowered the honour
and prestige of England in the East. They had not the palliations that
he could put forward, and they developed the evil tendencies that were
only latent in his acts. Clive could always discriminate between his own
interest and that of the State. When they clashed, he never for a
moment hesitated which to prefer. In attacking the Dutch at Chinsura
iViT-ea] Deposition of Mir Jqfar. 559
he risked the loss of a large part of his private fortune, which had
been entrusted to an agent in the Netherlands. But, as a responsible
administrator, he should have realised that lesser men would fail to tread
so nicely the difficult and dangerous path lying between the domains
of public and private interest. To sum up^— there was neither criminality
nor corruption in the acceptance of these presents^ but there was
inexpediency to a very high degree, and Clive himself afterwards found
his previous conduct something of a millstone round his neck in his last
and noblest work, the purification and reform of the civil service of
Bengal.
After his departure, Shah Alam, the new Moghul Emperor, invaded
Bengal, but suffered defeat at the hands of Caillaud and Knox. During
the campaign Mir Jafar's son was struck with lightning and killed. The
Bengal Council seized the occasion to effect another revolution in the
Government. They deposed Mir Jafar in favour of his son-in-law Mir
Kasim, from whom they took gratuities to the amount of two hundred
thousand pounds. A minority of the Council protested forcibly against
this revolution, which they considered unnecessary and likely to! cast an
indelible stain upon the national character, it was really planned by
Holwell, who temporarily succeeded Clive. Vansittart, the new Governor,
was a man of good instincts but weak character, whose own account
of his period of office presents, a pathetic picture of a constant struggle
with a recalcitrant and corrupt majority on the Council.
Mir Kasim was a man of a very different stamp from Mir Jafar,
He possessed great administrative ability and honestly did his best to put
the affairs of the province on a spund footing, and to meet his engage-
ments with the English. He cleared off most of the encumbrances left
by his predecessor, discharged his debt to the Company, reduced the
numbers, while greatly increasing the efficiency, of his army, and so
completely won the allegiance of his . soldiers that they fought for him
with a bravery and fidelity rarely experienced in the native armies of this
period. His position however was untenable. In the end the ruthless
extortions of the Bengal Council drove him to desperation and brought
out all the latent savageness and cruelty of his nature. The English
policy towards him was an unfortunate mixtm-e of weak compliance
and unrighteous severity. The only two men of real ability on the
Council, Vansittart himself a,nd young Warren Hastings, , consistently
supported and defended him up to the eve of the appeal to force,
declaring that with very few exceptions they found his conduct irre-
proachable. Hastings announced that, but for the Nawdb's final acts
of treachery and barbarity, which made it the duty of every Englishman
to unite in support of the common cause, he would have resigned the
Company's service as a protest against the treatment of Mir Kasim.
The question of the internal trade was a complicated one. By
Surman's Firman granted in 1717, the Company were allowed to
660 Inland trade duties. [i756-63
cany on their trade to and from Bengal free of duty. But this
exemption applied only to imports and exports by sea. After 1756,
the Company's servants began iUtegally to claim exemption for the
private trade which they carried on for their own profit within the
province itself, though their competitors, the native merchants, were still
obliged to pay all imposts in full. Thus unfairly favoured, the English
diverted more and more of the trade into their own hands or those of
their native agents, and many of the factors made a profit by selling
the Company's passes to native traders unconnected with the Company.
While therefore the English obliged the NawAb to pay them heavy
subsidies for the support of their troops, they were at the same time
lessening the customs duties from which his revenues were mainly de-
rived, and impoverishing by unfair competition that portion of his
subjects who would normally have paid the tax. Against this state
of things Mir Kasim protested at first with dignity and moderation,
then with increasing irritation. Vansittart and his supporter Warren
Hastings, the two men who played an honourable part throughout in
opposition to the corrupt majority on the Council, met the Nawdb
in conference in 1762. They agreed that the English should pay duties
at nine per cent, on their internal trade, an arrangement which, even so,
left them in a remarkably favourable position as compared with their
native rivals. It was stipulated that no use should be made of this
agreement till Vansittart had laid it before the Council ; but Mir Kasim
by a fatal error began to act upon it at once. The Council promptly
disowned the action of the Governor. They would probably have done
so in any case ; but they were furious when they heard that the NawAb
was acting as though Vansittart's assent was all-sufficient. Hastings
solemnly warned them that they were making themselves the "lords
and oppressors " of the country, but in vain. One of the most significant
features of the business was that the Council were prepared to embroil
the province and risk the loss of Bengal fot a point in which the
Company, as distinct from their servants, had no interest at all.
Mir Kasim now abolished, as he had a perfect right to do, all
internal dues for two years, thus putting his own subjects on a level
with the British. The Council immediately demanded that he should
reverse the order, Vansittart and Hastings alone pointing out the extreme
injustice of requiring the Nawdb to ruin his own subjects for the purpose
of upholding the British monopoly. Mir Kasim was gradually driven
into open war. So far he had acted with forbearance and moderation ;
but from this date he exhibits a rapid deterioration of character.
Frequent collisions took place between his officers and the agents of the
Company. In June, 1763, William Ellis, a man of quarrelsome and
tactless ways, who had long been on bad terms with the Nawdb, seeing
that war was imminent, forcibly took possession of the city of Patna,
but was surrounded by the enemy and captured. All the up-country
1763-5] Battle of Buxar.— Return of CUve. 561
agencies were seized and dismantled. In July Mir Kasim was formally
deposed. Mir Jafar was brought from his seclusion and once more placed
upon the throne. He was made to grant all the commercial privileges
claimed by the English, promise a large donation to the army, and, by a
most iniquitous provisioUj indemnify the Company for the acts committed
by the usui-per in whose favour he had been formerly deposed. ' Mir Kasim
was brilliantly defeated by Adams in two fiercely fought battles in 1763
and, after ordering the massacre of Ellis and his other prisoners at Patna,
took refuge with Shuja-udrdauM, the Nawdb Wazir of Oudh and the
Emperor Sh^ Alam, who were now acting in conjunction. Munro,
who had first to queU. by drastic measures a dangerous sepoy mutiny,
defeated their combined forces in 1764 at the battle of Buxar, in which
the English lost over 800 men killed and wounded and the enemy left
2000 dead upon the field. This was the most important victory in
India won by the English up to that time, and it laid Oudh and a
great part of northern India at their feet. Soon afterwards the titular
Emperor of Hindustan with his chief Minister, the Nawdb Wazir, made
his submission to the victors.
Early in 1765 the Bengal Council once more eiFected a lucrative sale
of the succession to the Naw^bship. Mir Jafar died in February, and
was succeeded by his second son. A new treaty was concluded, extending
British influence in the administration and transferring all real control
to a Deputy Nawdb who was largely dependent on the Council. In
spite of the fact that all the modifications of the former compact were
against the Nawd,b's own interests, he was compelled to make handsome
presents to the Governor and Council. The whole afikir presented a
stronger instance of compulsion than had yet occurred, and the scandal
was intensified by the fact that, before the documents were signed, strict
orders against receiving any gratuities from native Powers were received
from home.
The transaction was hardly completed, wjien, in May, 1765, Clive
arrived, with special powers to take up his second governorship of Bengal.
It was now five years since he left India. In England his course had
not been altogether smooth. Though he was hailed by Pitt as a "heaven^
bom general," the political honour bestowed upon him was limited to an
Irish peerage. Qive himself considered it inadequate; but Ministers were
probably influenced by the fact that he had been munificently rewarded by
a native Power. He entered Parliament as member, for Shrewsbury in
1761, and by a lavish purchase of rotten boroughs soon gathered round him
a little band of supporters. He was consulted by the Government in the
framing of the Indian clauses of the Treaty of Paris in 1763, but never
seems to have won the complete confidence of either political party in
England ; and his main sphere of activity lay in the domestic politics
of the East India Company. A certain opposition had grown up against
him even in the Court of Directors, partly due to a dictatorial letter he
Oi M. H. VI. OH. XV. S6
662 dive's second gofoernorship of Bengal. [i759-65
had addressed to them from Bengal and partly to the fact that his
suggestion to Pitt, in 1759, of state control over Indian possessions had
leaked out. Three years after his return, the attempt already referred
to was made to stop the payment of \\\s jagir. At this point news
arrivied of the calamitous position of affairs in Bengal. The Court of
Proprietors, who never faltered in their allegiance to him, at once
demanded that he should be sent out to set matters right. The Directors
gave way; Clive was appointed Governor and Commander-in-chief
in Bengal ; an an-angement was made by which he was to receive the
jagir for ten years, or till his death if it fell within that period ; and
his chief partisan was elected Chairman of the Company. If the ex-
isting Bengal Council were found to be opposed to him on his landing,
Clive was empowered to call into being a smaller committee of four
nominated by himself, and together they were to assume all the functions
of government.
Having arrived in India, Clive found that the military position had
been completely retrieved by the victories of Adams and Munro. It
remained for him to reform the internal administration and determine
the future foreign relations of Bengal. His task in both directions was
a diflBcult one. Demoralisation had spread through every branch of
the service. Insubordination was rife both on the civil and the military
establishment; waste, plunder, and recklessness were everywhere pre-
valent. No living man but Clive, with his vast Indian experience and
his iron strength of will, could have stemmed the tide of corruption,
and of all his other achievements none is comparable to the work,
incomplete as it was in some respects, that he accomplished during his
second term of office in Bengal. Finding it necessary at once to exercise
the special powers with which he had been endowed, he nominated his
Select Committee two days after his arrival,. amid the pale faces of the
original Council, sick with apprehension of the reckoning to come.
Every man was made to take the covenant against the receipt of
presents, and the evil system which allowed the Company's servants
to escape the regular internal dues on their private trade was abolished.
Clive himself was in favour of the total abolition of licensed trading
and the substitution of salaries on a liberal scale; but, as the Court
of Directors refused to adopt such a solution, he did his best to legalise
and limit a practice of which he disapproved by allocating the profit
of the salt monopoly, carefully regulated and graded, to the emolument
of the Bengal staff. After two years the system was abolished by the
Directors, who granted instead of it a commission on the gross revenues
of the province. These reforms were not carried without the fiercest
opposition. Three of the original Council were driven into resignation ;
one was expelled. The immense sums he had himself received after
Plassey were naturally, though unfairly, quoted against Clive. To a
certain extent his past now rose up against him, and his position would
1765-9] Clive's reforms and foreign policy. 6iS3
undoubtedly have been stronger, if he had been able to offer something
better than the technical and legal defence, sound enough in its way,
that in 1757 there was no order of the Court of Directors against the
practice and that the circumstances of a revolution and a peaceful
succession were very different. To an uneasy sense of a certain sting
in the taunts of his opponents are probably to be attributed both the
strength of Clive's language of condemnation and the continual assertion
of his own disinterestedness, which are alien to modem taste.
Cliye had next to regulate the Company's relations with the Emperor
and his hereditary chief Minister, the Nawdb Wazir of Oudh, His
settlement with the latter was the constructive part of his work that
was destined to endure the longest. Shuja-ud-dauld was required to
pay 50 lakhs of rupees as a war indemnity, and was restored to all his
dominions except the districts of Kora and AUahdbdd. A defensive
alliance was concluded with him, by which the Company engaged, on his
being responsible for their pay and maintenance, to provide troops
whenever he required them for the protection of his frontiers. Thus
Oudh definitely assumed that condition of a "buffer" State, which it
retained down to its annexation by Lord Dalhousie in 1856.
A more difficult problem was presented by Shah Alam, who, with
the prestige of his high office joined to the disability of material poverty
and destitution, was drifting like a derelict vessel, powerless for good
yet potent for harm, on the stormy sea of Indian politics. Clive called
iipon the Emperor once more to confirm the Nawdb of Bengal in his
office, and took over On behalf of the East India Company the ditvani
of the province, which he had refused when formerly offered in 1759.
The duty of the Diwan was to collect and adriiinister all the revenues,
to defray the ex;penses of government, and, after setting aside funds for
the ' support of the Nawdb, to remit the remainder to the imperial
treasury at Delhi. On this occasion certain modifications were intro-
duced. The Company were to pay the Nawdb of Bengal a fixed sum
of 53 lakhs of rupees (reduced to 41 lakhs in 1766, and to 32 in 1769),
to give the Emperor an annual subsidy of 26 lakhs, and make over to
him the districts of Kora and Allahdbdd as a means of supporting his
imperial dignity.
' Theoretically, it is perhaps not easy to justify this curious solution
of the problem, which was, indeed, described by a political opponent
as a "monstrous heap of partial, arbitrary, politiclEll inconsistencies."
Practically it is difficult to suggest a more feasible course. The arrange-
ment was attacked from diametrically opposite standpoints, according
as the critics gave their attention to the Emperor's high claims or his
feeble resources. Clive was accused both of driving too hard a bargain
and of having been needlessly generouis. Was it really worth while, it
was asked, to buoy up the sinking empire, or, if so, would it not have
been bettdr to march to Delhi, and conquer all Hiridustan in the name
CH. XV. 30—2
664 The "dual system." [i766-88
of the Moghul ? From these d&zzling dreams Clive had the strength
of will to turn away his eyes. He realised, none more clearly, that the
path to dominion lay open. " It is scarcely hyperbole to say," he wrote,
" that to-morrow the whole Moghul empire is in our power." But he
nevertheless confined the territorial influence of the Company to the
three provinces of Bengal, Behar, and Orissa. As events showed, he was
mistaken in the idea that British expansion could be permanently limited;
but that he was right in so limiting it at the time, is proved, so far as
such things are capable of proof, by the fact that the thirteen years of
Hastings' rule barely preserved the frontiers as Clive had fixed them against
external enemies. Had the British grasped the glittering prize too soon,
they might with weakened and scattered forces have been unable to
withstand the Maratha onset in the next decade. Concentrated within
the narrower lines, they were able to repel it, and Clive perhaps was
building better than he knew when he deliberately stayed his hand.
The position in Bengal after the acquisition of the Diwani was a
very complicated one. The Nawdb himself became a mere puppet and
the pensioner of the Company, His deputy, with whom Clive now
associated two colleagues, remained as the visible head of , the executive,
receiving from the English the expenses of admimstiration and liable
to be called to account by them for any gross abuse or scandal. The
criminal jurisdiction was also left to him, while to the Company's servants
belonged the control of the treasury and certain limited judicial powers in
civil suits. But, even in their own department, the Bengal Council kept
sedulously in the background, and till 1772 they transacted the revenue
business through the agency of native collectors, though, to control these,
English "supervisors" were appointed after 1769. Clive's famous "dual
system" broke down badly in operation during the next seven years,
and can only be commended in so far as it was a logical step to the open
assumption of responsibility on the part of the Company carried out by
Hastings in 1772, and the completion of his work by Lord Comwallis
in 1788. There was inherent in it a fatal divorce of power from re-
sponsibility which caused most of the old scandals and abuses speedily
to make their reappearance. The avowed reason why Clive stopped
short of assuming the full sovereignty was that to do so would have
offended the susceptibilities of other European Powers; and this plea was
considered adequate and valid by the highest authorities of his day.
He may also, not improbably, have been influenced by the conviction that
such a burden was too heavy to be placed upon the shoulders of the
civilians of Bengal, till a new generation had grown up under better
conditions of training and discipline.
Before he left Bengal, Clive found himself called upon to face a
crisis which threatened to endanger all his achievements. He had been
ordered to abolish the system of extra pay and allowances known as
"double hatta^ which, at first exceptional, had grown to be the rule
1767-73] Mutiny in BengaL-Clive attacked in Parliament. 565
throughout the Bengal army. The abolition produced a mutiny of
the officers, planned with great deliberation and a cynical indifference to
the public interest or the claims of military allegiance thoroughly charac-
teristic of the demoralised state of the presidency. Clive had already
alienated the civil service to such an extent that an open social boycott
was organised against him. He now found himself in danger of losing
the power of the sword. In this fearful predicament he never faltered,
and his supreme mastery over men was never better exemplified. The
slightest sign of weakness would probably have brought upon him the
fate that afterwards befell Lord Pigot, of being deposed and imprisoned
by a combination of the civil and military officers. In a few days, by
amazing promptness of action and pure inflexibility of will, he had
shamed the mutineers into submission. It is in a crisis of this nature
that Clive appears almost a Titanic figure. He matched all the re-
sources of his wonderful personality against a rebellious Council, an army
in open mutiny, a foreign position of extreme peril, and won the day.
Clive left India in January, 1767, weary and disillusioned. When
all necessary qualifications have been made, he must be acknowledged
to have accomplished a task that made even greater demands upon his
courage and intellectual powers than the terrible crisis of 1756. He
retmmed to find, within a few years, the national gratitude for his latest
services almost obliterated by the censure, in some cases merited though
most unhappily timed, now visited for the first time (for the facts were
only just becoming known) on his earlier and less reputable transactions
in Bengal. In view of the revelations made by the Parliamentary Com-
mittee of 1772, this result was probably inevitable. The attack on
Clive is often attributed wholly to the baffled spite and mean revenge
of the corrupt Bengal gang who thronged back to England, bent on
exacting vengeance for their dismissal and disgrace. But, though it was
certainly a monstrous perversion of justice that a man like Johnstone,
whose criminality was tenfold greater than that of Clive, should have
been allowed to direct the attack instead of being put upon his defence,
it would still be unfair not to recognise that a section of his accusers
were influenced by a more righteous motive— the desire to set in no
doubtful light England's relations with her Eastern dependency.
Clive's great speech in 1773, when he stood' at bay before a critical
and unfriendly Hoiise, is eloquent alike of his weakness and his strength.
He scorned to gloss over or extenuate a single one of his acts, but
justified himself throughout. It has been well said of hiin, that he
possessed a high sense of honour with little delicacy of sentiment. He
declared that he might have brought back from India after his second
period of office an immense fortune, infamously added to the one already
secured. This was true, and it was thoroughly characteristic of Clive's
frank, honest, rather coarse-fibred, mind that he should claim a merit
for not having incurred infamy. Just as he would not go an inch
666 Clive's defence. — His death. [1769-74
beyond what was legally permissible, so he could not understand how
it was blameworthy for a man to take the utmost that his position
allowed. His standards in matters of personal profit and public duty
were not particularly fastidious, though hardly lower than those of his
age; but, such as they were, he never failed to act up, to them;;, The
House of Commons, with his famous apostrophe ringing in their earsj
that when they came to decide upon his honour they should not forget
their own, took perhaps the best possible course. They accepted a
resolution declaratory of the fact that he had received) definite sums
from native Powers ; but they rejected that, part of the motion which
seemed to reflect on his personal integrity, and they added in simple and
eloquent words the famous rider which so worthily set the seal upon his
fame, that "Robert, Lord Clive, did at the same time render great and
meritorious services to his country."
In 1774 Clive, who had been: a victim to insomnia and melancholia,
took his own life; He was one of the greatest men, intellectually at any
rate, that have represented England in the East. In the field or at the
Council-table, he was the incarnation of energy. , However complicated
the problem that confronted him, his clear and eager mind, disentangling
the issues and sifting the trivial from the essential, sprang confidently,
and unfalteringly to a decision. It was conceivable that he might decide
wrongly. It was almost inconceivable that he should hesitate. In the
difficult sphere of action in which his life was passed, he towers abonfe
all his contemporaries. He is as supreme in India prior to 1770, as is
Warren Hastings from 1772 to 1785. Nothing is so, great a tribute
to his powers as the deference of his coUeagi^es. In the earlier part of
his career they seem with fe^ exceptions to have acquiesced gladly in his
masterful leading, and at the end,, when, he came as accuser and judge, to
have been blasted with the breath of his displeasure.
Five years elapsed between Clive's departure and the assumption of
office by Warren Hastings. TTie administration tended to fall back
into the old evil grooves. Verelst and Cartier, though the former at
any rate was a man of estimable private character, proved incapable of
resisting the bad tendencies latent in the dual system. While its
servants accjimulated vast fortunes, the finances of the Company were
far from prosperous, and Bengal itself, already; plundered by corrupt
native officials, was scourged by a terrible famine in, 1769-70. A
sinister commentary upon the administration of this time is afforded by
the fact that though a third of the inhabitants of Bengal are said to
have perished, the revenue collections of 1771 exceeded those of 1768,
the year preceding the famine. The blame for the unscrupulous scramble
for wealth could not now at any rate be put down to the parsimony
of the Company at home. The commission on revenues paid to Verelst
in two and a half years amounted to about .£45,000 ; and in addition he
i766-7a] ■ Misgovernment in India. 667
had an official salary, with allowances, amounting to d&4800. The
rhetoric of Pitt and Burke hardly exaggerated the sinister effect on
public life, both in India and at home, of these great fortunes, won so
easily and by such questionable means.
In southern India there was a beginning of those complications
which were destined to embarrass the course of Warren Hastings* Three
Powers were striving for supremacy in the Dekhan— Mysore, Haidaribdd,
and the Marathas. The Council of Madras, unable or unwilling to
regard the instructions from home that they should stand aloof from all
political entanglements, plunged into a path of war and diplomacy which
brought discredit upon the British name. It was only with great
difficulty and by the payment of a stipulated tribute that they could
prevail upon their ally, the Nizdm of HaidarabM, to recognise the
validity of the imperial grant which made over the Northern Circars to
the English. In 1766 they concluded a treaty with the Nizdm, by which
they were drawn into an alliance with him and the Marathas against
Haidar Ali, The Nizdm proved faithless and leagued himself with the
enemy ; but their united forces were severely defeated at Changama and
Trinomali (1767). In spite of the successes they had won, the English
concluded another treaty with the Nizdm, containing such ignominious
terms that it received the sharpest censures from the Court of ; Directors.
The war with Mysore was waged without skill or judgment, and Haidar
Ali dictated peace on his own conditions in 1769, almost under the walls
of Madras. The Peace laid an obliga,tion upon Madras to aid the ruler
of Mysore if attacked by another Power. This engagement the English
were unable to fulfil when Mysore was invaded by a Maratha army in
1771, and they earned by their default the undying hate of a formidable
and relentless foe.
In 1772 Warren Hastings became Governor of Fort William in Bengal.
His Indian career had hitherto been creditable rather than brilliant, and
he had passed through the most corrupt era of the Presidency with
reputation unsullied. He held office, first as Governor, then as Governor-
General, for thirteen years. The period was the most critical in the
Eastern hJtory of Great Britain. Political anarchy in India reached its
acutest stage. Never were the anomalies in the Company's constitution
more prominent, their control over their servants weaker, or theix policy
more fitful and spasmodic. At home there was often sharp divergence
of opinion between the Courts of Directors and Proprietors, and the
Company, thus divided against itself, was called upon to repel popular
and Parliamentary attacks of a most formidable character. Under this
accumulation of evils, British power in the East was shaken to its
foundations ; and the fame of Warren Hastings rests not upon victorious
campaigns or any wide extension of the frontier, but upon the claim,
moderately and with perfect justification put forward by himself, that
he maintained the provinces of his immediate administration in a state
668 Warren Hastings Governor of Bengal. [i765-80
of peacd, plenty; and security^ when every other member of the British
Empire was involved in external war or civil tumult.
In internal affairs his administration forms the connecting link
between those of Clive and Cornwallis. The period of misgovernment that
succeeded 1765 condemned the " dual system." The Court of Directors
now determined to " stand forth as Diwan" or in other words to collect
and administer the revenues of the Province through the agency of their
own servants, and they ordered Hastings to carry out this great reform.
The Deputy NawAbs of Bengal and Behar were removed from office and
prosecuted for peculation, though in both cases they wfere acquitted.
The treasury was transferred from Murshiddbdd to Calcutta. Hastings,
on a fresh succession, reduced the Nawdb's allowance from thirty-two to
sixteen lakhs of rupees a year ; thdugh, thanks to a more economical
administration and the abolition of sinecure offices, a larger net sum was
actually received by the Prince. In 1772 a quinquennial settlement of
the land revenue was introduced, and English officers, now first called
collectors, were appointed to control large districts. These men had
certain powers of civil jurisdiction, but the criminal Courts remained
in native hands. In Calcutta two Courts of Appeal were established,
the Sadr Diwani Adalat (Supreme Civil Court), presided over by the
Governor-General and two members of Council till 1780, when the
presidency was conferred by Hastings on Impey, and the Nizdmat
Adalat (Supreme Criminal Court), presided over by a native judge.
The whole tendency of these fiscal, judicial, and agrarian reforms was in
the direction of the solution afterwards effected by Cornwallis ; and it
is noticeable that Hastings was personally in favour of going further
than the Court of Directors, believing that it was a mistake to maintain
the jurisdiction of the NawAb in criminal affairs.
Hastings had next to face the problem of preserving intact the
frontiers of Bengal. Clive's solution had hitherto worked fairly well,
but at this stage it utterly broke down. The Marathas, having recovered
from the rout of Pdniput in 1761, were hanging like a threatening cloud
over Delhi, Oudh, and Rohilkhand. The puppet Emperor, who had
been living at Allahi,bdd on the revenues allotted him by the Company,
accepted, in spite of earnest remonstrances from his English allies, the
proposal of the hereditary foes of his House that they should place him
upon the imperial throne. He entered Delhi in 1771 under an escort
of Maratha horse, but found himself the mere tool and dupe of his
patrons, who forced him within a year to make over to them the districts
of Kora and AUahdbM, which had been assigned to him by Clive. The
English were confronted by an awkward dilemma. The Emperor was
merely a "pageant of our own creation." To continue paying his
allowance was equivalent to subsidising their bitterest enemies ; to allow
the Marathas to occupy the ceded districts in his name was to surrender
the gate of Bengali In such predicaments Hastings never hesitated.
1769-74] OudJi and RoMlkhand. 669
He had a hearty contempt for formulas as distinct from facts, which
in moments of peril often proved his salvation, though it occasionally
led him into difficulties and embarrassments. He chose a solution which
at once replenished the Company's treasury, and was adapted to the
traditional Bengal policy of strengthening Oudh. He withheld the
tribute to Shah Alam, which as a matter of fact had not been paid
since the famine of 1769-70, and he restored Kora and AUahdbdd to
the Nawdb of Oudh for a sum of fifty lakhs of rupees in addition to
the pay of the Company's troops employed to garrison them. The
spirit, if not the letter, of Clive's treaty undoubtedly implied that the
Emperor received these gifts as being under British protection, and by
all ordinary political rules Hastings was perfectly justified in maintain-
ing that he had forfeited his right to hold them at all by transferring
them to a third party.
When in September, 1773, Hastings met the Nawdb of Oudh in
conference at Benares, he took the first step in a transaction which led
him into deeper waters. Shuja-ud-dauM proposed that, in return for a
large subsidy, the English should lend him troops to conquer Rohilkhand,
the fertile tract of country lying north-west of Oudh along the base of
the Himalayas. The country was peopled by Hindu peasants under the
sway of the Rohillas, a Mohammadan clan of Afghan pedigree, forming a
loose confederacy and acknowledging as their leader an able chief, Hafiz
Rehmat Khan. Against this man the NawAb of Oudh had a plausible
claim for a large sum of money, alleged to have been promised him
in return for assistance given to the Rohillas against the Marathas.
Hastings saw at once the strategical advantage to be gained by carrying
the frontier of his ally to the base of the Himalayas, nor was he un-
influenced by the chance of procuring a large sum for the Company's
treasury, though he always maintained that this was merely a secondary
inducement ; but he realised, at this time at any rate, that there were
other objections to the scheme, and he gave a somewhat reluctant assent
to the proposal, hoping apparently that the need for intervention would
never arise. In 1774, however, the NawAb required that the bargain
should be fulfilled. Attended by a British brigade under Champion, to
whom fell all the hard campaigning, he invaded Rohilkhand. Hafiz
Rehmat Khan was killed fighting gallantly at the head of his troops, and
about twenty thousand Rohillas were banished from the country, which
passed finally under the sway of Shuja-ud-dauld. The episode of the
Rohilla War formed one of the most serious charges made against Hastings
in Parliament, and the fiercest denunciations were launched against his
whole' policy in regard to it. He was accused of having violated the
rights of nations, and bartered away for gold the lives and liberties of an
inoflensive people. An unhistorical and romantic halo was cast by the
gorgeous imagination of Burke round the origin of the Rohilla race.
It has since been recognised that much of this criticism was beside the
570. The BoMlla War. — Hastings Governor-General. [i774
mark. The Rohillas had no ancient prescriptive right to the country
which they ruled. They had only been established there for a quarter
of a century, and their title was no better, though certainly it was no
worse, than that of most of the States that had risen to power on Moghul
decadence. The Naw^b of Oudh had, according to the standard of the
day, a specious pretext for going to war, though it probably could not
have borne a very close scrutiny. It is untrue that the military opera-
tions were marked by any circumstances of peculiar atrocity, and the
complaints which Champion recorded against his allies were obviously
dke far more to jealousy of the plunder they acquired than to disinterested
compassion for the lot of the conquered. Though the government of
Oudh could hardly have been an improvement on that of Hafiz Rehmat
Khan, who was a man of ability, it is improbable that the Hindu
population were greatly affected by the change, and it is certain that
Hastings did his best to prevent any excesses on the part of the Nawdb
and his army. But, when aU this is admitted, some serious objections to
the policy still remain. It ran counter to the clear instructions of the
Directors against interference in Indian warfai:e. Hastings was creating
a dangerous precedent when he lent his ally a brigade of British troops,
to be used at discretion against a people with whom the Company had
no quarrel, and in his arguments and minutes on the subject there is
plainly apparent a rather cynical disregard of every other consideration
except political expediency.
The campaign in Rohilkhand was the last important event of
Hastings' administration as Governor of Bengal. In 1774 his position
and powers were materially altered by the Regulating Act of Lord
North, passed the preceding year — the outcome of Parliament's first
attempt to construct by statute a constitutional government for India.
To some such interference on the part of the State, events had long been
tending. In his famous letter to Pitt in 1759, Clive had suggested that
the Crown should claim sovereignty over all the Company's possessions ;
but the great Minister, as was his wont when he did not see his way
clearly, spoke on the matter "a little darkly," plainly showing his
reluctence to raise so important a question. During the next twelve
years men thronged back to Eiigland loaded with the wealth, and what
was strongly suspected of being the plunder, of Bengal. The incursion
of these "nabobs" with their lavish notions and orientalised habits
into the aristocratic circles of the time is one of the most striking social
phenomena of the eighteenth century. Contemporary memoirs and
letters reveal the mingled contempt, envy, and hatred with which they
were regarded. " We are Spaniards in our lust for gold," wrote Horace
Walpole, " and Dutch in our delicacy of obtaining it." The East India
Company, as Burke said, was a State in the disguise of a merchant, a
great public office in the disguise of a counting-house, and political
thinkers saw a dangerous anomaly in the growth of an Eastern empire,
1766-74] Lord NortUs Begulating Act STl
linked to the main fabric of British dominion only through the agents
of a private company. From 1766 Indian affairs were constantly, before
Parliament, and in 1767 a compromise on the question of sovereignty was
accepted by both parties, in the arrangement that the Company should
pay a yearly sum to, the State of ^400,000 for its territorial possessions.
In 1772 two Parliamentary Committees (Select and Secret) conducted
those exhaustive enquiries into East Indian affairs which led incidentally
to the attack on Lord Clive. It was shown that within the nine years
1757-66, £%1GQ,QG5 had been distributed by the Princes and natives of
Bengal in presents to the Company's servants, exclusive of Clive's jagvr,
and that a further sum of £3,770,833 had been paid as compensation
for losses incurred. At intervals of a few months the committees issued
voluminous reports, and the revelations there made, together with the
Company's appeal for a public loan of a million and a half, indicating
the breakdown of their finance, led many to the cionclusion, as stated
byiBvu-goyne, that, if sovereignty and law were not separated from trade,
both India and Great Britain would be overwhelmed. The divqrcp of
trade from the other functions of the Company was not destined to be
effected for many years ; but the Regulating Act of Lord North attempted,
in a rather half-hearted way some differentiation between the executive
and judicial functions in India, and an extension of state control over
the Company both at home and abroad. The Governor of Bengal was
to become Governor-General of all the settlements. He was to be advised
by a Council of four, and was allowed a casting vote in the evenj; of
there being an equal division of opinion. A Supreme Court of Judicature
was to be established at Calcutta, consisting of a Chief Justice apd three
puisne judges. All correspondence on civil government pr military
affairs was to be laid by the Directors before his Majesty's Ministers,
and the constitution of the Company was largely remodelled on a
more oligarchical, basis. The Act was a compromise throughout and
intentionally vague in many of its provisions. It did not openly assert
the sovereignty of the British Crown in India, or invade the titular
authority of the Nawdb of Bengal. It appointed a Governor-General,
but shackled him with a Council that might reduce him to impotence.
It established a supreme Court of justice, but made no attempt accurately
to define the field of its jurisdiction, specify the law which it was to
administer, or draw a line of demarcation between its functions and
those of the Council.
' Warren Hastings was appointed the first Governor-Genereii, and he
was also the last to hold ofiice under the terms of the Act. The Counr
cillors, Monson, Clavering, and Francis (Barwell was already in India)j
the Chief Justice Impey and his three colleagues, arrived in 1774. The
members of Council, always inspired by Philip Francis, began by;quarrei-
ling with the Governor-General over some absurd point of etiquette in
their reception, and they followed this up by a general revision and
572 Hastings and his Council. [1774^80
condemnation of his policy. There followed six yeai"s of an adminis-
tration which is probably unparalleled. Hastings governed in the face
of a hostile majority and a relentless opposition direbted, not from- Press
or platform outside, but from the other side of his own Council-table.
Philip Francis, one of the ablest and most merciless of men, directed a
stream of criticism, vindictive, subtle, and provocative, on every detail
of the Governor-General's policy. Hastings had control of Indian
affairs at a peculiarly critical time; but the Struggle at the Council-board
alone, where Barwell was his only suj^orter, would have fully taxed the
powers of any other man. He could not even rely upon consistent
support from home, and in 1777, when his own precipitation in offering
resignation had given a handle to his enemies, he only retained his
position by refusing to accept the order appointing General Clavering
GtJvembr-^General.' In view of the nerve-destroying ordeal to which he
was subjected, it would be more than surprising if his career did not
reveal some faults and mistakes. When every act was submitted to the
same fierce attack, every motive called in question, the very boundaries
of right and wrong must have tended to become blurred in the mind
of the victim who, as he himself said, was enveloped in an atmosphere
of "dark allusions, mysterious insinuations, bitter invective, and ironical
reflections." By his savage vindictiveness, Francis utterly neutralised
all that might have been salutary in his opposition. From 1774 to
1776, Hastings was almost uniformly outvoted in the Council. By the
successive deaths of Monson and Clavering in 1776 and 1777, and the
exercise of his casting vote, he regained control, and maintained it
though with difficulty till 1780, when he disabled Francis in a duel.
After the final departure of the latter in the same yfear, his position was
somewhat easier, for, though his Council were not fuUy in accord with
him, they were men of much smaller powers than their predecessors.
The Council began with a thorough-going condemnation of the
RohiUa War. They recalled Hastings' agent from Lucknow and
Champion's brigade from Rohilkhand. The Nawdb Wazir of Oudh
died in 1776; and, in direct opposition to the traditional policy of
strengthening British friendship with that State, they forced his successor
to enter into new treaties, imposing upon him largely increased subsidies
for the use of British troops, and supporting the claims of the late
Nawdb's widow to a disproportionate share in his wealth and estates.
The personal hostility of the Council reached its highest point in 1776,
when Nuncomar, a native of high rank and great influence but of
doubtful character, appeared at the Council-board with a charge against
Hastings of having received a bribe. The accusation was eagerly wel-
comed by Francis, Monsoji, and Clavering, who, without waiting for proof,
placed on record a minute that " there is no species of peculation
from which the Honourable Governor-General has thought it reasonable
to abstain." Warren Hastings firmly refused to be arraigned at his own
1775-80] Trial of Nuncomar. 673
Council-table by a man of "so notoriously infamous" a character as
Nuncomar. He probably felt that, with the untrustworthiness of native
evidence and before a prejudiced Court, it might be difficult to prove his
innocence, and he had good justification for resisting the high-handed
and insulting procedure of his enemies on the Council. While the
matter was still pending, Nuncomar was himself suddenly arrested on a
charge of forgery unconnected with the case. He was brought to trial
in due course, condemned to death, and executed. The charge against
the Governor-General was dropped and never proceeded with.
It is unlikely that the fascinating mystery which broods over this
famous episode will ever be entirely dispelled. The insinuation that
Hastings and Impey deliberately planned the destruction of Nuncomar
is now regarded as baseless. It is, at any rate, as Pitt declared, un-
supported by a shadow of proof. The two men were by no means
always on the best of terms, and the quarrel between the Supreme Coiui;
and the Council as to the limits of their respective jurisdictions had
already begun. The charge originated in a natural way out of an old
lawsuit that had been before the Courts for many years, and Impey
appears to have tried the case patiently and fairly according to his
lights. On the other hand the punishment of death was undoubtedly
too severe. Though the point has, been disputed, the best reading of
the law is that the English code making forgery capital was not intro-
duced into Bengal till some years after the alleged crime had been
committed. However this might be, Nuncomar's case was preeminently
one in which the discretionary power of the judges to relax the general
severity of the law should have been exercised. There was therefore
something very like a miscarriage of justice ; but for this the Supreme
Court, and not Hastings, was responsible, and the part played by the
judges is quite capable of explanation without any necessity for suggesting
a corrupt motive. Impey and his colleagues were intensely jealous of
their privileges and rights. They had hardly been long enough in the
country to appreciate the difference between English and Indian. ideas
of law. Their conduct in the case was quite on a par with their whole
attitude tiU 1780, during which time they were constantly engaged in
a high-handed and injudicious attempt to apply the practice of the
Courts of Westminster to the native population of Bengal. They were
absolutely conscientious and utterly wrong-headed. The Chief justice
seems seriously to have considered that it was his duty to check by a
severe example the prevalence of the crime of forgery in Bengal, and
that to grant any remission of sentence to Nuncomar would, in view of
his great wealth, have brought upon the Supreme Court the charge of
being open to corrupt influence. Whether or not Hastings, finding there
was a legitimate handle against his enemy, and having a shrewd idea
from his knowledge of Impey's character of what the issue would be, if
he once set the trfvin of events in motion, gave a hint to Nuncomar's
CH. XV.
674 Finandal dealings of Hastings. [1775
accuser to press on his case at this particular juncture, admits of no
exact proof or disproof. The coincidence in time was extraordinary, and
it is likely enough that Hastings would have regarded such a method of
defending himself as perfectly justifiable. When he was fighting with his
back to the wall he was not, any more than his adversaries, inclined to be
fastidious as to the weapons he employed. Not the least mysterious part
of the episode is the fact that Francis and his colleagues made no attempt,
as they might constitutionally have done, by petition or intercession, to
obtain a i-eprieve. The reflexion is inevitably suggested that, realising
they had gone too far, they were actually relieved to see their tool and
coadjutor put out of the way. Francis himself at the time stigmatised
the suggestion of any complicity between the judges and the Governor-
General as * wholly unsupported and libellous," and only adopted the
insinuation as his own a few months later. If there is anything sinister
in Nuncomar's fate, it is not perhaps the darkest shadow that falls across
the reputation of the Governor-General.
It is a curious point that Hastings never seems to have denied in so
many woi-ds that he had received the sum mentioned by Nuncomar, and
even his most strenuous defenders have acknowledged that there was
probably some irregularity in the business which he was anxious to
conceal. A few words may profitably here be said on the whole subject
of his financial transactions. The charge of rapacity was, as Hastings
himself averred, that of all others the most foreign to his nature. Yet
it must be admitted that in matters where money was concerned he was,
at best, inexcusably careless and extravagant, and he afforded Francis,
who, to do him justice, was personally incorruptible, too many oppor-
tunities for damaging criticism. Hastings' life in retirement shows
a constitutional inability to keep clear of debt, and in India the
extraordinary difficulties of his position compelled him, or seemed to
compel him, to act in a manner which looked highly suspicious to those
who did not possess the key to his conduct. In the depressed state of
the public financesi he appears to have considered that he was justified in
accepting for the Company presents or douceurs offered to himself; and,
to avoid objections from his Council, he occasionally retained them for
considerable periods in his own possession. He dared, in fact, to risk his
reputation for what he conceived to be the interests of his employers,
and was thus sometimes proved to have seriously compromised his own
future defence. Whether the equivocal cotu-se followed by Hastings was
really necessary, is open to dispute. The Directors themselves did not
think so, and it may be said at once that no modern administration
would tolerate for a moment the extraordinary latitude in financial
matters claimed by the Governor-General. He seems to have considered
that so long as he could assure the Company that he had "the applalise
of his own breast," they had no cause to make any further demand upon
him. Francis was often needlessly provocative; but he was right iii
1775-83] Wars in western and southern India. 575
demanding a more stringent method of control, and the severe terms in
which the famous Eleventh Report of the Select Committee of 1783
commented on Hastings' whole system of account-keeping cannot be
said to be unmerited. No one now believes that Hastings was personally
corrupt; but the real proof of his integrity depends, not upon the formal
defence offered at the Impeachment, which was technically weak, but on
the moderate fortune that he brought back from India, and on the well-
attested fact of his absolute cleanhandedness during his early years in
Bengal, at a time of life when the prospect of wealth holds out its most
dazzling attractions, and his opportunities of acquiring it were unlimited.
Moreover, Hastings cannot in fairness be judged by the standard that
would be applied to a modern representative of the Crown in India. To
govern provinces and wage wars successfully is one thing, to do either
or both at a financial profit is quite another— and yet this is what was
expected of him. The Governor of Bengal was now called upon to deal
with high and intricate political problems; but, as the representative not
of the State but of a private commercial company, he was required, not
less than when his duties were confined within the walls of a factory, to
show a credit balance in the pages of his ledger.
In the affairs of his own province of Bengal, Hastings exercised, at
least when able to dominate his Council, a direct control. In western
and southern India, since he was usually only informed of the ^ait
accompli, he was limited as a rule to the rather melancholy choice of
trying to wrest a partial success from the conduct of policies he con-
demned, or the alternative, so distasteful to a British administrator, of
disowning his subordinates. In 1775 the Bombay Government engaged
by the Trfeaty of Surat to support a Pretender to the Peshwaship at
Poona, on condition that Bassein and Salsette were ceded to them.
Hastings was at one with his colleagues in denouncing the war that
ensued as "impolitic, dangerous, unauthorised, and unjust"; but, as the
Bombay authorities had actually occupied Salsette and involved them-
selves in military operations, in which they had won a certain amount of
success at a heavy cost, he argued that they must be allowed to continue
the war to a point whence they could extricate themselves without loss.
He was opposed, however, by the majority of the Council, and an agent
was sent from Calcutta to Poona, who concluded the Treaty of Purandhar,
by which the English were allowed to retain possession of Salsette on
abandoning the cause of their protSgL Neither Hastings nor the
Directors were satisfied with the treaty, and in 1778 it was proposed to
make a new alliance with the Pretender. It is questionable whether, in
spite of obvious drawbacks, it would not have been better, even in 1775,
to have reversed the Bombay policy. It is fairly certain that in agreeing
to a renewal of the war Hastings, though he had the support of the
home authorities, made a serious mistake. No man could do more
justice in debate to a good cause than Philip Francis, though he seldom
576 Wars in southern India. [i765-82
allowed himself the luxury of supporting one. In this instance, he by his
able minutes and protests undoubtedly got the better of the Governor-
General, The only argument advanced by Hastings that could justify
the long and harassing warfare, which ended without gain to either side,
was the danger of a European and Maratha alliance, suggested by the
presence at Poona since 1777 of a French envoy. The military successes,
6oddard''s march across India and capture of Ahmadabdd in 1780, and
Popham's storm of Gwalior in the same year, were gained by Calcutta
forces and what his enemies called the "frantic military exploits" of
Hastings, The Bombay expedition only met with disaster, and its com-
mander in 1779 was forced tp sign the disgraceful Convention of Wargaon,
which surrendered all the territorial possessions gained by the English
in western India since 1765. The treaty was disowned by the civil
authorities, and the war, chequered by victories and defeats, dragged on
till 1782, when peace was made by the Treaty of Salbai, which practically
restored the status quo, though the Company were allowed to retain
Salsette.
Madras was, at the same time, passing through a disastrous and
discreditable epoch. Difficulties in relation to the hostile Powers of
southern India were aggravated by the equivocal status of the presidency
itself. Mohammad Ali, like the Subahdar of Bengal, was incapable of
defending .his own territories, and his dominion rested on the support of
British arms ; but, as Madras did not possess the executive and financial
control of the Carnatic, he was left with a dangerous amount of power
and responsibility. The attempt of the British Crown to maintain in
Arcot during 1770-1 plenipotentiaries accredited to his Court proved an
unhappy experiment, against which the Company vigorously protested
on the ground that it hopelessly compromised their relations with the
Nawdb. Mohammad Ali's corrupt and collusive financial transactions
with the notorious Paul Benfield and other junior servants of the
Company gave birth to the gigantic scandals known as " the Nawab of
Arcot's debts," which demoralised the whole internal government of the
presidency. In the short period of seven years two Governors were
expelled by the Court of Directors, and one suspended by Hastings, while
a, fourth. Lord Pigot, died in prison, where he had been confined by
his own subordinates for the rather high-handed and unconstitutional
measures he had taken against their corrupt policy. The result of these
constant changes in the executive was a chaotic and contradictory policy,
producing the most deplorable results. By 1780 the presidency had
succeeded in manoeuvring itself into a position of hostility to all the
great Powers of the Dekhan. In that year Haidar Ali made his
famous raid upon the Carnatic, which was immortalised in the oratory of
Burke. An English force under Baillie was surrounded and utterly
defeated after a gallant resistance. Munro, falsifying the reputation he
had gained at Buxar, flung his heavy artillery into a tank at Conjeveram,
and retreated to the suburbs of Madras.
1778-84] War tmtk Haidar All and the French. 577
Hastings now interfered drastically in the aflFairs of the presidency.
He suspended the Governor and, appealing, not in vain, to the patriotism
of Sir Eyre Coote, hurried him from Bengal with all available rein-
forcements to the scene of his former fame. The gallant old commander
saved the English in southern India by the severe defeat he inflicted
upon Haidar Ali at Porto Novo in July, 1781. An indecisive engage-
ment at Pollilore was retrieved by another victory at Sholingar in
September. The internal affairs of the presidency were reformed by
Lord Macartney, who came out as Governor in June, 1781. Appointed
by the Company from the ranks of the diplomatic service, he was in
many respects a forerunner of Lord Comwallis, and he introduced a
standard of incorruptibility in pecuniary matters to which even the best
of the Company's servants at this time were unable to attain. In
administration he showed a vigour and independence of character which
brought him into frequent collision with the Governor-General. In
1782 Tipu annihilated a British brigade under Braithwaite ; but Coote
won his last victory at Ami, and the signing of the Treaty of
Salbai in May withdrew from Mysore the cooperation of the Maratha
Powers.
Meanwhile, war had been declared against France in 1778, and
Chandernagore and Pondicherry had been captured by the English. In
the eclipse of British prestige in southern India the French saw a last
chance of effective interference in the politics of the Dekhan. In 1782
a formidable French fleet with Bussy on board appeared off the Coro-
mandel coast. Fortunately for the English the attempt was made a
little too late. Pondicherry was already in their hands ; there was no
port of approach ; and the military position on land had been retrieved.
Sufiren, the French admiral, was a naval commander of great genius;
but in Sir Edward Hughes he met a worthy antagonist. The rival fleets
inflicted great damage upon each other in five fiercely contested battles ;
but neither could gain complete command of the sea. When Bussy
landed in 1783, he found the opportune moment had gone by. Haidar
Ali had died in December of the foregoing year, worn out by his great
activities and the ravages of a slow disease. Bussy himself was besieged
by the English in Cuddalore, till the news of the Treaty of Versailles
forced him to sever his connexion with Tipu. The son of Haidar Ali was
however quite capable of continuing the war unaided. Eyre Coote died
in April, 1783, and his successor in the command was a man without energy
or genius. In March, 1784, by the Treaty of Mangalore, Tipu granted
the English a Peace on terms of a mutual restoration of conquests. Such
a conclusion of the war was far from being a glorious one, and Hastings,
severely censured Lord Macartney's conduct of the negotiations; but,
when he looked back to the year 1780, in which he was called upon
to face " a war, either actual or impending, in every quarter and with
every Power in Hindustan," he had good reason for satisfaction. The
C. M. H. VI. CH. XV. 37
678 Deposition of Chait S^ngh. [1775-81
armies of Mysore had been beaten back from the Camatic ; an under-
standing had been patched up with the NizAm ; and a further breathing
space had been won before the final and inevitable conflict with the
Maratha confederacy.
During this time Hastings' path in Bengal had been anything but
smooth. The long and costly wars begun by Madras and Bombay were
supported mainly out of the revenues of Bengal. As a result, the
Company's finances, which the Governor-General had placed on a sound
footing at the beginning of his administration, proved even from 1778
unable to bear the strain imposed upon them. Casting about eagerly
for relief, Hastings was led into that course of action in regard to the
Rdja of Benares and the Begams, or Princesses, of Oudh which formed
two of the most serious charges against him at his trial. The circum-
stances were very briefly as follows. The sovereignty over Benares had
passed by treaty in 1775 from the Nawdb Wazir of Oudh to the Company.
On the outbreak of hostilities with France in 1778, Hastings held that
he was justified in demanding from the Rdja, Chait Singh, a special war
contribution, in spite of a guarantee given by the English in the treaty
that the annual revenue paid by him should not be increased. He
obtained with difficulty sums of five lakhs of rupees in 1778 and 1779 ;
in 1780 he ordered him to supply in addition 2000 cavalry. This Chait
Singh refused to do, on the plea that it was beyond his power, and
Hastings promptly determined to inflict upon him a fine of fifty lakhs
as rebellious and contumacious. The Governor-General proceeded in
person to Benares in 1781, and there denounced as "offensive in style
and unsatisfactory in substance " a letter addressed to him by the Rdja
in mitigation of sentence, which certainly appears on impartial study to
be neither the one nor the other, but rather to be couched in terms
of almost abject submission. Though attended by only a weak escort,
Hastings next ordered the arrest of the Rdja in his own capital. Chait
Singh quietly submitted ; but his troops rose suddenly, massacred the
English guard, and released him. Hastings was placed for a time in
extreme peril, and it was only his extraordinary coolness and intrepidity
that saved his life. The rising assumed alarming proportions, and
serious fighting was necessary before the insurgents could be dispersed.
The domains of Chait Singh were declared forfeited, and were transferred
to his nephew in return for double the revenue formerly paid to Calcutta.
The Nawdb Wazir of Oudh had been for many years heavily in
debt to the Company; but, while he was comparatively poor, his mother
and grandmother, the famous Begams of Oudh, held large jagirs, or
landed estates, and, on the strength of a rather doubtful will, the rich
treasure valued at =£'2,000,000 left by Shuja-ud-dauld, which in the
natural course of events should have been bequeathed to the ruling
Nawdb. The latter, maintaining that he was unrighteously deprived of
what was his due, suggested that he should pay his debts to the Company
1775-81] The Begams of Oudh. 679
with the wealth of the Princesses, and that Hastings should help him to
obtain it. Now, in 1775, on the earnest entreaty of the British resident
at Lucknow, the widow of Shuja-ud-dauld had consented to pay a large
sum to the Nawdb, on condition that the Bengal Government gave a
guarantee that no further demands should be made upon her. Hastings
at the time was strongly opposed to the giving of such a pledge, but
had been overruled by his Council. The NawAb now (1781) asked that
the engagement with the Begam should no longer be considered binding,
and Hastings consented, giving as his reason for a decision which cer-
tainly required justification, that the Begams had countenanced the
rebellion of Chait Singh and had therefore forfeited anything of the
nature of treaty rights with the British. Having once screwed himself
to the point, Hastings urged the Nawdb Wazir, whose character
was feeble and irresolute, to resume the Jagirs and seize the treasure,
though he stipulated that the Begams should receive ample pensions
in compensation. British troops were marched to Fyzabad, for the
Nawdb hung back when the crisis came, and the eunuchs who managed
the Begams' affairs were compelled by imprisonment, deprivation of food,
and other hardships, to disgorge the hoarded treasure. It has often
been denied that anything in the way of " torture " took place ; but a
letter is in evidence from the British resident at Lucknow, stating that
on several occasions the eunuchs were led forth for corporal punishment.
These transactions were properly condemned by the Court of Directors
at the time. In both cases Hastings was driven to go back upon the
treaty engagements of the Company. He contended, as to the business
of Chait Singh, that the outbreak of the war with France justified the levy
of a special subsidy, and he charged the Begams with complicity in the
rising at Benares. But it was rightly felt that allegations of this kind
might be advanced with fatal facility in the case of any treaties that the
British found it inconvenient to keep. In his dealings with Chait Singh,
Hastings showed an impatient ruthlessness which was alien to his kindly
nature. The fine imposed by him was undoubtedly excessive. His own
conduct in the matter was rash to the point of folly, and he seems for
once to have been driven from his wonted serenity into a mood of
petulance and vindictiveness. As for the case of the Begams, the
evidence against them of any active part in the insurrection at Benares
was extremely weak, and it cannot be said that British troops were
worthily employed in aiding an Eastern sovereign to wrest money from
his relatives and dependents, or in standing by while servants were
maltreated, whose only fault was a too obstinate fidelity to the interests
of their mistress. The Nawdb himself and the British resident at
Lucknow faltered in the ugly work of coercion, and the reluctance of
the latter to carry out the task imposed upon him called forth a severe
reprimand from the Governor-General, who forbade him to allow any
negotiations or forbearance " until the Begams are at the entire mercy
cH. XV. 37 — 2
680 The Council and the Supremt Court. [i779-85
of the Nawab." Hastings' attitude throughout was that of one who
willed the end, but did not wish to be held accountable for the means,
or even to know too accurately what they were. The responsibility
cannot be altogether thrust upon subordinate agents, and no special
pleading, not even that of his able counsel at the trial, has quite availed
to clear his reputation in this sinister business. Both the episodes
therefore of the Raja of Benares and the Begams of Oudh merited an
enquiry ; to some extent they merited censure ; but they did not
warrant the ingenious distortions, the gross exaggerations, the malignant
additions in the way of imputed motive and alleged corruption, with
which they were overlaid by the managers of the impeachment.
The quarrel between the Council and the Supreme Court by 1779
became an open scandal, and all but produced a deadlock in the
administration. In 1780 Hastings conciliated Impey by appointing
him to the Presidency of the Sadr Diwani Adalat or Court of Appeal
for the provincial Courts of Bengal, at a salary of ^£"6500 revocable
at the will of the Governor-General and Council. This action was
loudly condemned at home, on the ground that to appoint the Chief
Justice to a second judicial post under such terms was to run counter
to the whole purpose of the Eegulating Act, which aimed at making
the Supreme Court independent of the executive. Impey seems not
to have acted from corrupt motives ; but he was hardly well advised in
acceding to an arrangement which laid him open to the suspicion of
having compromised his judicial independence for an increase of salary.
He was recalled two years later by the Directors at the orders of Parlia-
ment, but the attempt to impeach him broke down. From Hastings'
point of view the transaction had many advantages. It put an end to
a wellnigh intolerable state of things, afforded Impey the opportunity
to draw up a valuable Code of procedure, and anticipated the solution
afterwards adopted of extending the appellate jmisdiction of the Supreme
Court in Calcutta over the provincial Courts of the presidency.
Hastings spent eight months of the year 1784 in an extended tour
through Benares and Oudh, where distress, partly the result of famine^
partly of misgovemment, was everywhere rife. He proved his supreme
administrative talents in a thorough-going reorganisation of the finances
and internal affairs of these allied States, and in the autumn of the
year returned to Calcutta, to find the news of Pitt's India Act awaiting
him, with an account of the Minister's equivocal attitude towards himself.
Hastings, who had survived the fierce hostility of his own colleagues, the
censures of the Court of Directors, the condemnatory resolutions of
Parliament, and one definite order for his recall, was destined after
all to resign of his own accord the office he had held so long. Declaring
that "fifty Burkes, Foxes, and Francises " could not have devised a worse
measure, he quietly made the preparations for his departure, and sailed
for home on February 8, 1785.
1780-3] Fox" India Bill. 681
The government of the East India Company at this time might
perhaps be described as an oligarchy tempered by recurrent periods of
inquisitorial state inspection. For the last seven years public attention
had been fully occupied with the rebellion of the American Colonies and
the war with France; but after 1780 the Indian question once more
came prominently to the front. Though the Company's privileges were
extended for ten years, in 1781, as in 1772, both a Select and a Secret
Committee were busy with their affairs. The former investigated the
relations between the Supreme Court and the Council in Bengal, the
latter the causes of the Maratha War. The voluminous Reports they
presented were freely used as arsenals for weapons against the Company
by party orators in Parliament. Condemnatory resolutions were passed
in the Commons against the Governors of Bombay and Madras. The
relentless enmity of Francis and the nobler anger of Burke were preparing
to attack the man who had guided England's destinies in the East for
the past nine years. In the quick changes of the unstable Ministries
at this time, the fate of Hastings often trembled in the balance. The
advent to power of Rockingham, Fox, and Burke, in 1782 brought a
vote of censure in Parliament and the consent of the Directors to his
recall ; but their supersession by Shelbume's Ministry and the staunch
support of the Court of Proprietors gave him a further respite. The
CosJition of Fox and North in 178S was a political portent that boded
ill both to the Company and their great servant, while at the same time
the Directors were obliged openly to confess that the war had beggared
them and to apply to the State for another loan of i&l ,000,000. After
a measure drafted by Dundas had been rejected, Fox introduced his
India Bill. It transferred all the political and military power of the
Company to a Board of seven Commissioners to be nominated in the
first instance by Parliament and afterwards by the Crown, and all its
commercial powers to a subordinate body of nine assistant Directors,
who were ultimately to be nominated by the holders of East India
stock, though they too, in the first instance, were to be appointed by
Parliament. The feature of the Bill upon which the Opposition seized
was the surrender of the immensely valuable patronage of India to the
Ministry or the Crown, and Pitt thundered against it as the most
desperate and alarming attempt at the exercise of tyranny that ever
disgraced the annals of this or any other country. Nevertheless, the Bill,
being advocated with all the eloquence of its author and his coadjutor
Burke, passed the Commons by large majorities, only to be strangled
in the Lords, as Fox indignantly declared, by an infamous string of
bed-chamber janissaries. The truth was that George III, realising with
his usual political shrewdness, that the Coalition, though all-powerful
in Parliament, was highly unpopular in the country, had determined both
to destroy the Bill and rid himself of advisers he intensely disliked. He
took measures to make his wishes known to the Lords; the Bill was
ou. xr.
682 Pitfs India Act. [i784-8
thrown out ; and the Ministry resigned. Pitt came into power and in
1784 carried his famous Act, which greatly extended the control of
the State over the East India Company. While the patronage of the
Company was left untouched, all civil, military, and revenue aflFairs were
to be controlled by a Board consisting of the Chancellor of the Exchequer,
one of the principal Secretaries of State, and four members of the Privy
Council. A Secret Committee of three Directors was to be the channel
through which important orders of the Board were to be transmitted
to India. The Court of Proprietors lost the right to rescind, suspend,
or revoke any resolution of the Directors which was approved by the
Board. In India the chief government was placed in the hands of a
Governor-General and Council of Three, and the Presidencies of Madras
and Bombay were made subject to Bengal in all matters of diplomacy,
revenue, and war.
Warren Hastings landed in England in June, 1785. The storm
that was hanging over him did not break at once. In 1786, Burke
on several occasions moved in the Commons for papers on various points
of his administration. The attack upon Hastings in connexion with
the Maratha War and the expedition against the Rohillas failed ; but
the House passed condemnatory resolutions on his transactions with
Chait Singh and the Begams of Oudh. Pitt, who had defended Hastings
on the first two of these counts, turned against him on the third. Much
ingenuity has been wasted in the attempt to discover some recondite
motive for this proceeding. In political matters the simplest motives
are often those actually operative. Pitt was honourably desirous
of preserving a judicial impartiality, and there is every reason to
suppose, that when he read the evidence offered by the prosecution
on the Benares charge, he was reluctantly driven to the conclusion that
he could no longer stand in the way of a trial. On May 10, 1787,
Burke formally impeached Hasting at the bar of the Lords. The trial
began in Westminster Hall on February 13, 1788.
The articles of impeachment finally presented at the bar of the Lords
were twenty in number, and differed in many respects from the original
list of twenty-two, drawn up by Burke in 1786 for the consideration of
the Commons. The indictment was clumsily drafted, and combined
charges involving the highest criminality with others, which, if proved
up to the hilt, hardly amounted to more than venial errors of judgment
and policy. By far the greater number of the articles centred round the
dealings of the late Governor-General with the allied and protected State
of Oudh. Hastings was charged with tyranny and oppression in the
case of the Rdja of Benares, the spoliation of the Begams of Oudh,
the fraudulent sale of contracts, the grant of pensions to friends and
dependents from corrupt motives, the arbitrary settlement of the land
revenues of Bengal, the removal of the treasury from Murshiddbdd to
Calcutta, the violation of treaties made with the Nawdb Wazir of Oudh,
1788-91] Charges against Hastings. 583
compvdsioil put upon him to maintain an excessive number of troops,
unnecessary interference in the internal affairs of his kingdom, and the
confiscation of revenues and allowances due to his brothers and sisters.
Three of the episodes, which had given rise to the fiercest attacks
upon Hastings in Parliament and in the pamphlet literature of the day,
did not appear in the impeachment. The House of Commons had
definitely acquitted him on the charges connected with the Rohilla
campaign ; and, in addition, neither the Maratha War, the subject of
voluminous reports by the Secret Committee of 1781, nor the trial of
Nuncomar, was included in the indictment. In his discursive conduct
of the case for the prosecution, Burke was inclined to traverse the whole
of Hastings' career in India, but acknowledged that he was debarred
from commenting upon the Rohilla expedition, while he was censured by
the House of Commons for having stated incidentally that the Governor-
General had murdered Nuncomar by the hand of Sir Elijah Impey, on
the ground that the condemnation and execution of Nuncomar had never
been imputed as a charge.
Throughout the trial, there was an incessant wrangle on the question
of the admissibility of evidence, between the eminent barristers con-
ducting the defence and the managers of the impeachment, who were
politicians and laymen in legal matters, Burke declared that the Lords
were exempt from ordinary rules of procedure, and were bound only by
the law and usage of Parliament. He claimed that an impeachment
was a unique judicial process, designed to afford, in exceptional cases,
exceptional facilities for investigation and enquiry. But Hastings'
counsel obtained a decision that the rules of evidence of the ordinary
Courts should be adopted, and they used to the full all the advantages
which the technical forms of the Common Law permitted, or their own
expert knowledge suggested, in order to shield their client and to hamper
the conduct of the prosecution. Largely through disputes on this head,
the trial was extended to so inordinate a length, that, in 1791, the
Commons decided to abandon the greater part of the articles. Only the
first, second, foiui,h, and sixth, with part of the seventh and fourteenth
were retained. The first dealt with Chait Singh, the second with the
Begams of Oudh, the fourth with contracts, and the remainder, which
for greater convenience were consolidated into one, with the taking of
bribes and presents. Upon these counts alone did the Commons offer
evidence, and ultimately appeal to the verdict of the Lords.
The course and result of the impeachment are recorded in a later
volume. The reputation of Warren Hastings has suffered curious
changes. By the highest Court of judicature of his day he was
acquitted ; but on many counts the historical and literary verdict went
against him for nearly a century. Modem research seems to have
justified his acquittal on all the most serious charges ; but the reaction
in his favour has sometimes been carried too far. The impeachment
OH. XV.
684 The impeachment and the acquittal of Hastings. [1788-95
was not only a piece of party tactics, nor was it due simply to the spite
of Sir Philip Francis. The malignity of no man, however eminent,
could have supported so vast a superstructure. It was upheld by nobler
pillars— the high-motived though misdirected zeal of Burke, and Fox'
devotion to the law of liberty.
There were many things in the administration of Warren Hastings
that invited criticism, and some that deserved censure. It was well for
the credit of the British name that his action in the case of Benares
and Oudh should not crystallise into a tradition of British policy. It
was well that the whole of his career should be scrutinised, and if the
scrutiny was fair, his fame was bound to emerge justified, if not wholly
triumphant, from the test. It was well that the humanitarian feelings
quickening men's minds at the close of the eighteenth century should
find expression in the field of England's relations with her Eastern
dependencies, even though that expression was rhetorical, turgid, and
over-elaborated. But it was not well that Hastings, who had on the
whole played a great and splendid part, should be gibbeted as the modem
Verres, and made year after year a target for Burke's scorching invective
and Sheridan's theatrical calumny.
The managers of the impeachment (and this particularly applies to
Burke) ruined their cause by the ferocity with which they conducted it.
Had they been content with a temperate presentation of their charges,
it is probable that, as was done in dive's case, a qualified censure would
have been passed on some of Hastings' acts, coupled with a generous
recognition of his great services to his country. The machinery of an
impeachment was a clumsy anachronism that defeated its own object.
Many gave their votes for an acquittal, not because they believed there
was nothing to reprobate, but because they deemed the long agony
of the seven years' trial a more than adequate penalty for any errors of
judgment on the part of the accused, who, whatever else he had done,
had at least preserved India for England through a period of extreme
peril and in the face of appalling diificulties.
No one has ever doubted the transcendent abilities of Warren
Hastings. Even Francis paid a reluctant tribute to his high capacity.
The leading traits of his character were an amazing industry, remark-
able precision and clearness both of thought and expression, a serene
equanimity, a dogged patience under misfortune that seems almost
superhuman, a high and noble coui-age. Conjoined with these qualities
there may be observed on occasion a certain note of unscrupulousness,
a clear-eyed and rather cynical insight into the motive springs of human
conduct, a steely relentlessness when his mind was once made up, and
an Unshakable and extremely provocative self-confidence in the rectitude
of his conduct, even in cases where it was most open to criticism. Such
a character forms a complete foil to the generous-souled and idealistic,
but passionate and unbalanced temperament, of his great accuser. In
1788] Hastings and Burke. 686
^°^"g justice to Hastings, it is unnecessary to disparage the motives
of Burke. In so far as the latter was impeaching the vices inherent
in the constitution of the Company, he was often victoriously in the
right. The wrongs of India, as he himself declared, constantly preyed
upon his peace, and haunted his imagination by night and day. One
of his last letters contains an impassioned prayer that all he had ever
said or written might be forgotten before his part in the impeachment
of Warren Hastings. Right in his sincere dislike of many of the
Governor-General's isolated acts, right in his profound distrust of some
tendencies of his policy, right above all in his constant reiteration of
the truth that the function delegated to the Company was a trust and
to be rendered accountable, he allowed the strength of his feelings to
carry him beyond the boundaries of taste and decency, and made the
cardinal mistake of visiting the condemnation, justly incurred by the
system, upon the head of the individual who was called upon to ad-
minister it. To his vivid and heated imagination, the Peers assembled
in Westminster Hall were trying the cause of Asia in the presence of
Europe, and the prisoner at the bar stood forth as "the grand delinquent
of all India." He thus wholly missed the key to the character of
his great antagonist, and failed to discern what to posterity is the most
salient feature of Hastings' career, that though he committed faults and
made mistakes, he was never influenced by a lower aim than what he
conceived to be his duty to the Company, and the preservation at any
cost of England's position in the East.
CH. XV,
5$Q
CHAPTER XVI.
ITALY AND THE PAPACY.
Although the papal power itself was far too weak to affect the result
of the War of the Spanish Succession, yet the attitude of Pope Clement XI
as an Italian ruler had some importance, and he might have traded upon
the ancient claim of the Papacy to feudal suzerainty over the Sicilies
in order to obtain some temporal advantage. It was by the advice of
Innocent XII that Charles II of Spain had made the Bourbon claimant
his heir, and it was in accordance with the ancient papal tradition to
prefer a French to an Imperial ruler of Naples. Besides, Louis XIV had
of late years been militantly orthodox, warring perpetually against
Huguenots and Jansenists. On the other hand, there had been little
sympathy between the Papacy and the Empire since the Peace of
Westphalia; the Papacy was naturally alarmed at the Habsburgs'
obvious intention to reassert Imperial claims in Italy by means of the
Spanish inheritance, and Austria's chief ally was William III, who
represented the leading Protestant Powers. In 1700, the Curia had
distinctly declared in favour of a French policy by electing Cardinal
Albani, who had inspired Innocent's advice to Charles II, to the Papacy.
But Clement XI (as Albani now called himself), though learned,
upright, intelligent, and an able politician, had not sufficient strength
of character to carry through a bold and difficult policy. Alberoni said
of him that "he changes with every changing breeze"; the Venetian
Eiizzo, that " his opinions and decisions are frequently at variance." He
recognised Philip V as King of Spain, but, afraid of irrevocably offending
Austria, refused him the Sicilian investiture, and declared himself neutral.
As the investiture was also refused to Archduke Charles, the Emperor
was not conciliated ; by refusing investiture to either claimant, Clement
practically renounced his suzerainty. Both parties carried on campaigns
in the Papal States without any regard for the Pope's remonstrances.
Clement did not resist until the Emperor forced the Duke of Parma to
do him homage for his fiefs, over which the Church likewise claimed
suzerainty ; but in this question France had no interest in supporting
the Papacy. The Austrian army occupied Comacchio as an ancient fief
of the duchy, of Modena, and advanced on Rome, unhindered by the
1709-30] Clement XI and his successors. 687
Pope's hastily raised levies of peasants. Clement was forced to treat, and
ultimately to recognise the Archduke as King of Spain (1709); but
Comacchio was not given back for sixteen years.
At Utrecht the interests and rights of the Papacy were totally
disregarded; its feudal claims on Sicily and Parma were ignored.
Afterwards, Clement made a desperate effort to restore its prestige by a
new Crusade against the Turks ; he induced Austria to join a new Holy
League with himself and Venice, and persuaded Austria's enemies to
promise neutrality during the war. At first there was much enthusiasm;
smaller States and even Spain promised help; Clement fancied himself
another Pius V, and dreamed of another Lepanto; But, even before the
Allies had time to quarrel, Alberoni, having secured a Cardinal's hat by
empty promises, turned his crusading fleet against Sardinia. Austria's
attention was immediately diverted from the East, and Clement's dream
vanished with the Peace of Passarowitz.
Victor Amadeus' Tacitean verdict on Clement — "he would always
have been esteemed worthy of the Papacy if he had never obtained it " —
might have been passed on his successors. Innocent XIII (1721), kind-
hearted, but old and feeble, died, it was rumoured, of shame for having
made Dubois a Cardinal. Benedict XIII (1724) was, said the traveller
de Brosses, " bonhomme, fart pieux, Jhrt faible et fort sot.'''' Amiably
disposed and well-intentioned, he was ruled by his scandalous favourite,
Cardinal Coscia, who trafficked in spiritual privileges; but Benedict
would hear no complaints. When the Pope's death was announced at
the opera, the people rushed out, crying, " Good ; now we wiU go and
bum Coscia!" Coscia was severely punished by Benedict's successor,
Clement XII (1730). This Pope was a Corsini of Florence, who flooded
Rome with Florentines, and, when old and blind, was ruled by domineer-
ing nephews. " Let them do as they like ; they are masters," he cried.
Clement's election had been the work of the Zelanti (zealot) party
among the Cardinals, which, led by the dominating and terrible
Cardinal Albani, Clement XI's nephew, was determined to fight against
Jansenism and Liberalism.
The eighteenth century sovereigns envied the Church's wealth, and
disliked her independence and privileges. .It was hateful to them that
the imperkim, in imvperio which an independent self-jurisdiction and the
right of self-taxation had obtained for the Chiu-ch should be virtually
exercised by a foreign Power, still formidable when it interfered in
domestic affairs, though contemptible in politics. And popular move-
ments, of which they were but partly conscious, irresistibly drove the
sovereigns forward to attack the ecclesiastical position. These movements
sprang from different sources and motives, but their strongest factor was
Jansenism — the agitation for moderate Protestant reform, whose influence,
beginning in France, extended to several other countries. In France it
was really popular, and even affected the clergy, A few more daring
CH. XVI.
688 Anti-papal movements. [iroo-as
and independent minds pushed heterodoxy to atheism ; these were called,
rather flatteringly, the "Philosophers," and their influence seriously
menaced religion amongst the upper classes. Again, the lawyers, a
compact and homogeneous body, almost a caste, were prejudiced by
their professional feelings against a double jurisdiction. Different in
motives and aims, these groups united against their common enemy.
The " Philosophers " encouraged Jansenism as a menace to the Church ;
the French Parlement cherished it as a weapon in that campaign which,
having begun with a vindication of the rights of the Gallican Church,
now aimed at transferring the sovereignty over it from the Papacy to
the State. In France, where all anti-clerical parties were strong, the
first battles were fought. Clement XI, trusting to Louis XIV's ortho-
doxy, promulgated the Bull UnigenitiM, which championed Jesuit theology
against Jansenism so unwisely that it offended all Augustinian divines
and moderate Catholics. Upon Louis' death there was a violent reaction ;
Parlement and people became more Jansenist, while the Court favom-ed
the Philosophers. Anti-clericalism had grown immensely before Louis XV
was old enough to exert his influence in favour of orthodoxy, and the
Parlement, in its opposition to the Bull Unigenitus, dared to defy the
royal authority. The Government vainly endeavoured to obtain peace
by silencing the noisy controversialists.
Next to France, it was in Naples that anti-clericalism most flourished.
No Jansenism existed there, and the movement hardly extended beyond
the educated classes; but for centuries lawyers and ofiicials had struggled
against ecclesiastical privileges and jurisdiction. Clement's refusal of the
investiture embittered the strife; the lawyers urged anti-papal reform
upon the Government, and a group of anti-papal writers became pro-
minent. The clerical party pitched as their scape-goat upon the
historian, Giannone, and forced him to leave the country. But the city
authorities pensioned him, and he found a refuge at Vienna, while his
book, the Istoria Civile, though in itself neither powerful nor original,
became the standard work for all Italian anti-clericals.
Accordingly, when the Infant Don Carlos conquered Naples (May,
1734), and Clement XII, for fear of the Emperor, refused him the
investiture, he found his more influential and intelligent subjects
eager that he should assert his independence of the Papacy by ignoring
investiture and curtailing ecclesiastical power. They presented numerous
petitions to this effect; and an eminent lawyer, Genovesi, propounded
a scheme for ecclesiastical reform which would have suited Bonaparte.
However, the Spanish Government, which had itself just completed
a Concordat with the Pope, intervened, and the Pope was persuaded
to grant the investiture (1788), and negotiations for a Neapolitan
Concordat were begun.
In Sicily, there had already been a struggle about the Monorchia,
the ancient royal tribunal which claimed supreme control over ecclesias-
1719-40] The Papacy and Sardinia. — Benedict XIV. 589
tical affairs. The controversy was intensified when Victor Amadeus
ascended the Sicilian throne without papal investiture. Clement XI,
afraid to defy a great Power, thought that he could frighten Victor
Amadeus, and declared the Monorchia abolished. The King and
Piedmontese officials resisted firmly, but they actually had to hold in
check the anti-ecclesiastical zeal of the Sicilian Gran Corte. Native
enthusiasm soon cooled, and Victor Amadeus' loss of Sicily was partly
due to clerical agitation among the lower classes.
In Piedmont, where the King was absolute, and the governing classes
were his officials, the struggle lay wholly between the Monarchy and the
Papacy, though Victor Amadeus was supported by the unquestioning
loyalty of his subjects and by many of the clergy themselves. The
Sicilian question was followed by a quarrel about the investiture of
Sardinia, which Victor Amadeus declared unnecessary. Clement XI was
irreconcilable ; but the King sent the clever diplomat Ormea to Rome,
to attempt an arrangement with the milder Benedict XIII. The
Cardinals were set against any concessions, and Benedict was terribly
afraid of them; but Ormea gained the Pope's confidence and the support
of Coscia ; and, after three years of intrigue, a favourable Concordat was
made, and the Sardinian investiture dropped (1727). The Zelamti
furiously declared that, though the Pope must die, the Sacred College
was eternal, and, to prove their words true, elected Clement XII, on pur-
pose to repudiate the Sardinian Concordat (1731). Charles Emmanuel III
firmly continued his father's policy, though he obliged the Pope by
treacherously arresting Giannone and imprisoning him for twelve years.
The Conclave of 1740 was fiercely contested between the Zelanti
and the more moderate party, and the election of Benedict XTV
(Lambertini) was a compromise. It was surprising that the Zelanti
should have agreed to a candidate so unlike the typical Cardinal.
Benedict was genial, friendly to everyone, and witty, a man who would
turn an awkward situation with a jest — at times of a Rabelaisian flavour.
Yet his private life was pure; he improved his States by good and
economical administration; he was learned, especially in Canon Law.
His chief interest was in literature, and he was a brilliant writer and
conversationalist. His reign recalled the Renaissance days; he patronised
literary men and societies; to encourage Roman art the Academy of
St Luke was founded> The Catalogue of the Vatican MSS was begun,
churches were restored, antiquities discovered, the Index modified, the
Roman schools improved, even scientific professorships founded. Benedict's
friends were Muratori, Noris, and Montfaucon ; Hume, Montesquieu, and
Frederick the Great joined in his praises. Voltaire dedicated Mahomet
to him, and wrote him a flattering epitaph. Horace Walpole said
"he was loved by Papists, esteemed by Protestants; a priest without
insolence or interest, a Prince without favourites, a Pope without
nephews." Conscious of his impotence to stem the tide of change and
690 Policy of Benedict XIV. [i74o-58
disintegration, he spent his energies on matters within his power, and
hoped by ample concession in temporal affairs to improve the position
of the Papacy. He wrote, " Princes are a better support to the Papacy
than Prelates. With their aid I think myself invincible....! prefer to
let the thunders of the Vatican rest ; Christ would not call down fire
from Heaven.... Let us take care not to mistake passion for zeal, for this
mistake has caused the greatest evils to religion;" A series of Concordats
and temporal concessions gained for Benedict himself general respect and
admiration ; but their ultimate result was to convince the anti-clericals
that the Papacy was powerless and would concede any demand, while the
zealous Church party was exasperated, and prepared for a violent reaction
after Benedict's death. It was now indeed impossible to adjust the
conflicting ideals of Church and State, of Catholic and anti-Catholic;
moderate concessions would not satisfy Jansenists who wished for reform,
nor the Parlement, which aimed at supreme control of the Church, nor
the Philosophers, who wished to crush it altogether.
At first, however, Benedict's policy seemed to prosper. The Sardinian
Concordat of 1727 had been in part his work ; he now wrote to Ormea,
"I have changed my rank, but not my heart nor my memory." Negotia-
tions had already begun under Clement, and were now swiftly concluded
(1742) ; the old Concordat was renewed, with some concessions on each
side, and Sardinia thus obtained more ecclesiastical freedom than any
Italian State excepting Venice. A Neapolitan Concordat was also soon
concluded (1741); but it by no means satisfied Genovesi and the re-
forming party, though further changes were «,fterwards effected by the
Government on its own authority. In reality the King was not in
sympathy with the extreme party, nor was the populace, though a rumour
that the Archbishop meant to introduce the Inquisition led to a riot.
The clergy were still less satisfied ; they continually evaded the Concordat,
and excommunicated Magistrates for carrying out its provisions. Con-
troversy was incessant, and attempts for another Concordat failed; so
that, though on excellent terms with Charles, Benedict could not procure
ecclesiastical peace for Naples.
To Spain Benedict conceded, amongst other matters, the appointment
to nearly all Spanish benefices ; thus the Government obtained a control
over the secular clergy which proved very important at a later date.
Venice, which had more ecclesiastical liberty than almost any State,
had been for some time quiescent. In Benedict's reign, however, she
published a decree infringing certain papal rights. Benedict protested,
but to no efifect. The situation of Tuscany was the exact opposite of
that of Venice. No State had been so priest-ridden; the later Medici
and their subjects were slaves to clerical domination. The range of
ecclesiastical jurisdiction and privilege was extensive, and the clergy
interfered in every department of life. The Grand Duke Francis could
dare to be more independent, and began ecclesiastical reforms, which
1740-58] Benedict XIV. — The Jesuits. 691
led to some friction with the Papacy, but not to a quarrel. Nor were there
as yet serious difficulties with Austria. Benedict maintained neutrality
in the War of Succession, and quietly disregarded d'Argenson's hectoring
orders to oppose Francis' election as Emperor.
The greatest troubles still proceeded from France. Here society
was atheistic; Madame de Pompadour exercised her authority against
the Church ; the Philosophers extended their influence by the publication
of the Encyclopedie. Jansenism was highly popular; it was acquiring saints
and miracles of its own. The Government wavered in face of whatever
influence momentarily predominated ; it claimed to subject the clergy to
ordinary taxation, but withdrew before their firm opposition. The King
was personally devout, but he was swayed by Mme de Pompadour.
The storm broke, when the Parlement bullied and imprisoned priests
for withholding the Sacrament from persons who had not confessed
to authorised confessors, and who therefore might be tainted with
Jansenism. The King forbade the Parlement to interfere, and, on its
proving recalcitrant, banished it, but afterwards recalled it (1754). He
ordered a cessation of controversy; but to this the Parlement would never
submit. Bishops were fined and exiled; the King himself sent the
Archbishop from Paris for obstinacy, Benedict was uncertain of the
wisdom of interference ; but the General Assembly of the clergy (1755)
appealed to the Pope. After consultation with the Government, he
issued a very moderate Encyclical, which, while proclaiming the Bull
UnigenUus as a rule of faith, really waived the confession question.
"Since infidelity progresses daily," he wrote, "we must rather ask
whether men believe in God than whether they accept the BuU." Bemis
attempted conciliation, but his Ministry ended too soon, and Benedict's
moderation produced no ultimate good eflects in France.
Towards the end of his reign the anti-papalists opened a new
campaign. For nearly two hundred years the Jesuits had been the
strongest champions of the Papacy. Their immense influence, especially
in education, their discipline, devotion, intrepidity, above all their
extraordinary cleverness, made them the most determined supporters of
the Curia. Frederick of Prussia called them "the advanced sentinels
of the Court of Rome." But they had now grown too confident in their
own cunning, and were committing serious mistakes. Intrigue and
greed of power had made them unpopular in France, and their system
of morals was open to grave criticism on the part of the Jansenists. In
Spain and Portugal the prosperity of their American settlements and
trade provoked envy. They were identified with the uncompromising
attitude of the Church, especially with the Bull UnigenUus, and were
becoming rather a cause of weakness than of strength to the Papacy.
Hence the anti-papalists now directed their attack against them rather
than against the Papacy itself.
The moment was favourable, for several European Governments
692 Clement XIII and the Jesuits. [1758-04
were controlled by anti-papalist and Jansenist Ministers, Choiseulj
indifferent to religion, was simply guided by expediency ; but Roda and
Aranda in Spain, Tanucci at Naples and Pombal in Portugal, were one
and all enthusiasts. Pombal began by demanding an enquiry into the
Jesuits' American trade ; and Benedict, who disliked their worldly avoca-
tions, allowed Pombal's friend. Cardinal Saldanha, to hold the enquiryi
Benedict could not have foreseen the violent hostility of Saldanha's
report; but he died before it was issued, and his successor, Clement XIII
(1758), had neither skill to avoid nor ability to master the approaching
storm. Clement and his Minister Torrigiani had personal piety, courage
and patience ; but both were priests rather than politicians, and believed
that the righteous must ultimately triumph, and that their trials could
be overcome by passive endurance. Clement, elected by Jesuit influence,
was convinced that their cause was that of the Church, and was prepared
to submit to any humiliation rather than sacrifice them. But he could
not effectually protect them, and thus only involved the Church in their
misfortunes. As the Jesuits were always suspected of tolerating regicide,
Pombal's next move was to discover a supposed Jesuit plot against the
King's life. More than two hundred Jesuits were imprisoned ; the rest
were forcibly transhipped to the Papal States. When the Pope behaved
meekly, Pombal picked a quarrel with the Nuncio, and so compassed a
complete breach with the Papacy. Clement humbly craved for recon-
ciliation, and the King and people were soon tired of the quarrel ; but
Pombal persisted.
The French Parlement was delighted to find a fresh object for
attack, and tried to follow Pombal's lead. The French Jesuits had
foolishly appealed to it against an unfavourable sentence in the law
Courts, and the Parlement seized the opportunity to appoint a Commission
to examine the Jesuits' Statutes. The King intervened half-heartedly,
appointing a parallel Commission, which proposed, amongst other
reforms, that the Jesuits should obey a Fi-ench Vicar-General indepen-
dent of Rome. The Parlement ignored its proceedings, and, wholly
disregarding the royal authority, published a sweeping decree (1762),
closing the Jesuit schools, confiscating their property and dissolving their
foundations. In 1764 it banished all Jesuits except those who were
willing to renounce their Order. Choiseul was not actively hostile to
them, but prepared not to offend Mme de Pompadour on their account.
Meanwhile, Clement's diplomacy was so formal, almost mysterious, that
with him, as with Benedict XIV, friendly negotiation was impossible. As
he and the Jesuit General Ricci scouted the proposals of the Royal
Commission, the French Government made this the pretext for abandon-
ing the Jesuits altogether. Thus the Parlement had its own way, and
the King finally suppressed the Order in France (1764).
Charles III of Spain, in spite of his Jansenist Ministers, at first,
inclined towards the Jesuits, encouraging them to continue their work in
1765-8] Clement XIII and the Jesuits. 693
Paraguay, and sheltering some of the French exiles. But Charles, though
pious, was an absolutist, and had an unshaken faith in his own rights.
He was certain not to tolerate the Order for an instant, if convinced that
its continuance in Spain was prejudicial to his authority. His Ministers
accordingly declared the Jesuits responsible for some popular risings in
1766. Meanwhile, the Pope injured their cause, while involving himself
in their unpopularity, by issuing a Bull, Apostolicum Pascendi (1765),
which uncompromisingly proclaimed the innocence and merits of the
Order. Charles appointed a Commission of lawyers, sure to be deeply
prejudiced against the Jesuits, to report on their case ; and, in 1767, he
determined to suppress the Order in his dominions. Complete secrecy
was preserved until, on an appointed day, all Jesuit establishments in
Spain and its colonies were suddenly closed, and the. Jesuits forcibly,
though without discourtesy, shipped to Italy. Thus ended that interesting
and successful experiment in the paternal government of savage races
which the Order had conducted in Paraguay, The natives were told that
they had been tyrannously ruled, but would now be free and possessors
of their own land.
The Neapolitan Jesuits soon followed the Spanish. The Minister of
Justice, Tanucci, had controlled his enmity reluctantly, until Spain
unloosed his hands : when he drove the members of the Order across
the border with brutal contumely. The sudden advent of so many
exiles was very embarrassing to the papal Government. Many had been
granted small pensions; but they arrived in great destitution, and the
Roman clergy looi^ed upon them with disfavour. Fearing lest Spain
should threaten to withdraw their promised pensions, in order to obtain
concessions from him, Clement refused admission to the Spanish Jesuits.
Repelled from Civit^ Vecchia, they suffered much hardship until Genoa
gave them a refuge in Corsica. On the cession of the island to France,
they were again expelled, and Clement had to allow them to come
privately to the Papal States.
Hitherto no Power except the Bourbons had moved against the
Jesuits; a clever politician would, have used this circumstance, and in
return for certain concessions partial toleration might have ultimately
been obtained even from the Bourbons. If the Jesuits were nominally
secularised, they would be permitted to return home, and might have
gradually recovered their former position. But Ricci would listen to no
such plan; "Sint ut sunt,'" he said, "aut non mit."" The inevitable
result was extinction.
Far from conciliating the Bourbons, Clement entered upon a new and
quite unnecessary quarrel with them. Duke Ferdinand VI of Parma, or
rather his Minister du Tillot, demanded the same concessions as Spain had
received in her Concordat, and when Clement refused, took them without
permission. The Pope might have disregarded the impertinences of this
petty State ; but, forgetting the solidarity of Bourbon interests, he issued
0. M. U. VI. «B. XVI. 88
694 .Clement XIV and the Jesuits. [1768-73
a severe rrionitoi-km (1768)^ asserting 'his feudal claims over the duchy,
and threatening the Duke and his Ministers with excommunication.
Thfe Duke retorted defiantly and expelled the Jesuits. All the Bourbons
united to demand the withdrawal of the monitorium,', and, when Clementj
more courageous than wise, refused, France occupied Avignon, while
Tanucci seiaed Benevento and Pontecorvo, the papal possessions in
Napleis, and threatened Castro, a former fief of Parma in the Papal
States. Clement appealed to Maria Theresa ; but she wished to marry
her daughter to Ferdinand^ of Naples, and would not interfere. The
Bourbons naturally, and no doubt rightly, blamed the Jesuits, to whose
influence the Pope was entirely subject. Charles III formally demanded
the entire dissolution of the Order ; the other Bourbon Governments
corroborated his demands ; when Clement died (February, 1769).
To the next Conclave it practically fell to decide the fate of the
Jesuits. The Powers had not recently taken much interest in papal
elections ; but on this occasion the Cardinals kept up a close communi-
cation with the ambassadors at Rome, who exercised direct, if not open,
pressure upon the Conclave. The Cardinals dared not defy the Bourbons,
yet the ^elanti struggled against electing a Pope pledged beforehand to
destroy the Jesuits. Though Austria stood aloof, Joseph II happened
to be then in Rome ; the rules of the Conclave were relaxed, so that he
might visit the Cardinals, to whom he gave plenty of informal advice, re-
marking, "A year would not be wasted in electing another Benedict XIV."
The intrigues of this Conclave are hard to unravel; the Jesuits
afterwards declared that the election of Ganganelli was simoniacal,
because he pledged himself, if elected, to abolish the Order. He
was among the candidates approved by France ; but no definite pledge
of the kind can be proved. Indeed, Choiseul interfered when Spain
wished to exact pledges from all candidates. Probably both parties
thought that they might control Ganganelli, because of his known
moderation, not to say pliability, of character. The new Pope, who
took the name of Clement XIV, loved peace and justice; yet he was
obliged to listen continually to the bitter complaints and malicious mis-
representations of the Jesuits and to the importunities and threats of
the Bourbons' envoys. To gain time, and not to allow the Powers any
fair ground for discontent, he made many concessions to their demands.
The monitorium against Parma, though not formally revoked, was
ignored ; privileges were granted to Sardinia and Venice ; Portugal was
reconciled, to the delight of both King and people; Pombal behaved
amicably, and his brother was created a Cardinal. Charles III also made
concessions; while France appointed Bernis as ambassador, who gained
Clement's confidence, and in his turn received a Cardinal's hat^ Only
Tanucci remained irreconcilable. Heedless of the reproofs of Charles III
and Choiseul, he continued his violent anti-papal campaign, republishing
the works of GiannOne and Sarpi.
1769-74] Fall of the Jesuits. 695
; The contest as to the Jesuits continued for four years. Clement
knew that he could not save them, nor had he much sympathy for them.
He was a Franciscan and a Thomist, and had to suffer from their
slanders. He called them "those men abandoned by God, who are
about to undergo the consequences of their obstinacy." But he would
not be forced to condemn them with unseemly haste, and without at
least an appearance of judicial impartiality. He refused forieign troops
to guard him against a real danger of assassination, and would not
hear of bargaining on the basis of the restoration of Avignon. " I do
not sell my decisions," he said. The Powers accused him of shuffling ;
and even Bemis complained of his reserve and inaccessibility. Nor was
there any responsible Minister at the Vatican to bargain with, since the
Pope dared not trust any Cardinal. The Curia was full of intrigue, even
the Bourbon ambassadors mistrusting one another; Spain suspected
France of lukewarmness, especially when Choiseul fell before Madame
Du Barry, who favoured the Jesuits. Aiguillon, however, carried on the
anti-Jesuit campaign.
But Clement's delay justified itself. The violence and duplicity of
the Jesuits alienated their own friends, even Cardinal Albani ; they were
very unpopular in Rome, especially amongst the other clergy. By
January, 1773, Clement had drafted a Bull for their suppression; it was
modified to satisfy the scruples of Maria Theresa, and in August it was
published. Early in 1774,, Avignon, Benevento and Pontecorvo were
restored to the Papacy; but many diplomatic forms had first to be
gone through to make the bargain appear as a concession.
Most of the Powers granted pensions to ex-Jesuits, and allowed those
who submitted to return home as secular priests ; but the more refractory
members of the Order refused even to acknowledge its dissolution. They
heaped unmeasured obloquy upon the Pope ; but the story spread by
them of his madness, is quite discredited; for, though his health soon
began to fail, he could transact business until the end; but cajumny
probably shortened his life, and it is possible that he was poisoned.
Bernis had to order French soldiers to protect his catafalque from insult.
So ended for a time the great Order of Ignatius Loyola. As Ranke
observes, it had long survived its original function, the spread of the
Counter-Reformation. It had been diverted to other ends — ^the contest
.with royal and national anti-ecclesiastical movements, with Jansenisita and
Rationalism. In spite of its influence on education, it had proved
imequal to these struggles, and its unpopularity was injuring the papal
cause. Yet the interests of the Jesuits and those of the Curia were
so nearly identical that the fall of the Order was the heaviest blow
which papal prestige hsA received since the Reformation. Philosophers,
Jansenists and anti-papal statesmen exulted, and there followed within
a few years tremendous ecclesiastical changes, some with the consent of
the Pope, but many in defiance of his protests. The demands of the
696 Naples and Don Carlos. [1734-44
Powers were not at all moderated by papal compliance on this occasion ;
they merely considered one success as a step towards others, and States,
hitherto less aggressive, soon followed their example.
The Neapolitan nobility had appreciated the independence allowed
them by the Austrian Government; but the populace remembered the
strict hand kept by the Spanish Government over the nobles. They
thought that an independent king would likewise keep the nobles in
order, while giving Naples the advantages of a local Court. So Naples
welcomed the Infant Don Carlos with many fireworks, and San Gennaro
graciously signified his approval. Sicily, which had lately fought for
Spain, was equally satisfied.
Charles III (Don Carlos) was young, good-looking, pleasant and
well-meaning ; he had fair abilities, and a careful education would have
made him a good king. But Elisabeth Famese intended to control Italy
thi'ough Naples, and Naples by Ministers dependent upon herself, who
encouraged her son's natural idleness and discouraged him from partici-
pation in the Government. His attendance at Council was almost formal;
his time was spent in sport, especially hunting, at Church, at the theatre,
in planning fine new estates and in stocking them with game. Hunting-
lodges were built — it was in digging the foundations for the lodge at
Portici that Herculaneum was discovered. Magnificent and costly palaces
were begun at Capodimonte and Caserta; but both were unfinished
when Don Carlos left Naples. For the city were built the huge theatre
of San Carlo, some new streets and a mole. ■ In 1738, vaaiefttes celebrated
the King's marriage with Maria Theresa's niece, Maria Amalia of Saxony.
Though only a child, she was clever, charming, and high-spirited, and
joined enthusiastically in the King's sports, so that he was soon devoted
to her. She wished for political power; but the Ministers, San Stefano
and afterwards (1738) Montealegro di Salas, governed under the sole
direction of Elisabeth Famese. In foreign policy Naples had to follow
Spain, and in 1741 sent its army to join Montemar in central Italy.
Nevertheless the Neapolitan Government had declared itself neutral, and
was disagreeably surprised when (August, 1742) an English fleet appeared
off Naples, and threatened immediate bombardment if the Neapolitan
troops were not withdrawn from the war. Di Salas, aware that Naples
could not be defended, gave way, though the King wished to resist.
Henceforth, however, more attention was paid to military preparations,
and, when in 1744 Austria threatened invasion, an efficient Neapolitan
army, commanded by the King, joined Gages' Spanish force in the
Papal States, to oppose Lobkowitz' advance.
After much manoeuvring on both sides about Velletri, Lobkowitz at
last made a night attack and seized the town, Don Carlos himself
narrowly escaping through a window. But while the Austrians were
sticking Velletri, Gages reassembled his forces and expelled the invaders.
174&-59] Rdgn of Charles III. 597
Afterwards the camps remained face to face, until in the autumn Lobko-
witz slowly retired, Don Carlos following as far as Rome. His triumphant
return home made a great impression on the fickle Neapolitans, whose
loyalty would hardly have resisted an Austrian invasion. In fact there
was still a powerfid and active Austrian party amongst the nobility.
They had persuaded Maria Theresa to attempt the reconquest of Naples,
and they promoted an Austrian propaganda amongst the people which
the Government- severely repressed by a series of Commissions called
Giunte d'Inconfldenza,pu.mshmg many innocent as well as guilty persons.
In spite of his victory, Charles remained under Spanish domination
until Maria Amalia, weary of political insignificance, contrived to sub-
stitute for di Salas a less powerful Minister, Fogliani (1746), and the
death of Philip V ended the rule of Elisabeth Farnese. After this, Charles
seemed to acquire an unwonted sense of responsibility, developing a
policy of his own, and exercising control over his Ministers and even in
part over his wife, who had aspired to fill the place of his mother.
But her persistent meddling led to much court intrigue, and in 1755
Fogliani fell before her machinations. Henceforward, the King ruled
without a chief Minister through the Secretaries of Departments. One of
these was the clever Parmesan lawyer, Tanucci, who, from Minister of
Justice, now became Foreign Secretary.
Charles asserted his independence in refusing to sigh the Treaty of
Aix, which implied that, if he succeeded to Spain, the Sicilies must be
ceded to his brother Philip. He did not hope to keep both, but intended
the Sicilies for his own younger son; and, when the Seven Years' War
began, France, anxious to secmre the solidarity of the Bourbons, by the
Third Treaty of Versailles guaranteed the Sicilies to Charles' descendants.
Pitt also was bidding for his friendship, but the King shared Tanucci's
truly Tuscan hatred for Pitt's ally, Sardinia. Indeed, Naples and Sar-
dinia were on the verge of a war over Piacenza, which, according to the
Treaty of Aix, Don Philip ought to cede to Sardinia if Charles succeeded
to Spain. France, however, intervened for peace, and Sardinia finally
accepted pecuniary compensation. Further to secure his son before
leaving Naples, Charles established good relations with Austria in a
treaty which guaranteed the succession to the Sicilies, in return for the
cession of the Presidi to Tuscany.
The death of Ferdinand VI (1759) made Charles King of Spain. As
his eldest son was an idiot, the second was heir to Spain, and the third,
Ferdinand, a child, was left at Naples with a Council of Regency, in
which Tanucci was supreme. So powerful was Tanucci's personality that
he was credited afterwards with having inspired and directed Charles'
policy from the first. But, until he became Foreign Secretary, his
Ministerial position was subordinate, and there is no evidence that
he exercised any special influence on the policy of the Government
outside his own office.
CH. XVI.
698 Condition of Naples under Charles III. [1739-59
The Government had excellent intentions, but not sufficient strength
of purpose to eifect striking improvements. The Neapolitans, it has
been said, were familiar with revolution, but could not understand or
assimilate reform. The Government's action was continually hindered by
the privileges of the nobles and clergy, the conservatism of the lawyers,
and the prejudice, inertia and superstition of the populate. Some good
reforms were effected, but they were few and not far-reaching. The chief
were the ecclesiastical changes already mentioned, because in these
matters public opinion assisted the Government. Ecclesiastical juris-
diction and immunities and rights of asylum were limited, and clerical
property (about one-third of the whole kingdom) was taxed, though
never beyond two per cent, of its value. Ecclesiastical censiu-es on
officials for the discharge of their duty were declared inoperative, and
a limit was imposed to the number of Religious, which had reached
one-fortieth of the population.
Thus but little progress could be made towards the most needful
kind of reform, a change in the social system. The ancient " Grand
Barons " had given way to a class of nobles, generally ignorant aind idle,
dissipated and extravagant, and devoid of political ability. Yet they
possessed most of the land, and had feudal jurisdiction over four-fifths
of the people. As the principal Estate in Parliament, they could with-
hold donativi, or voted taxes, and thus force the Government to abandon
any unpopular reform. The municipality of Naples was mainly in their
hands, and the control of the capital was of supreme importance for
the kingdom at large. The Government diminished their authority by
attracting them to the Court, where they spent more money on luxuries,
and less on , retinues of lawless feudal retainers. Austrian partisanship
ruined many, and their place was taken by new creations from the officied
classes. Many titles were sold, and so too was membership of Charles'
newly established , knightly Order of San Gennaro, Thus rank de-
creased in social value, an4, "J5 duca, ma non cavaliere^ was a popular
saying. The lawyers, many of whom were of noble birth, held political
power and filled the government offices. They forced a homogeneous,
influential, and conservative body, including nearly all the talent of the
nation. They usually opposed reform, especially in legal matters. A
commercial middle class hardly existed ; but the revenue officials, mostly
Genoese, made fortunes by cheating both people and Government, and
often bought land and titles. The city populace had been indulged
■withjestas and cheap food by nervous Governments ; it was lazy, turbu-
lent, addicted to mendicancy ; "la pli0 abominable canaille, la pltts
digoMcmte vermine,"" de Brosses called it. The city was financially;
favoured at the expense of the prpvijices, and the upper classes at the
expense of the lower ; the unfortunate peasantry bore the weight of
taxation, and were crushed between the nobles and government officials.
Many lived on coarse grain^ and herbs, without salt or oil, and in the
1734-69] Reform in Naples under Charles III. 699
remote districts com was unknown. Misery drove many to brigandage ;
others joined the crowd of beggars in the city. Genovesi, the noble
Neapolitan seeker after reform, compared the people to savages, without
civilisation or Christian morals.
The difficulties of fiscal reform were increased by the extravagances
of the Court, which spent about five million francs annually, three times
as much as that of Turin. Building cost a nearly equal sum. But the
revenue was almost doubled, though the individual burden was actually
rather diminished. This was due in part to official economy, in part to
ecclesiastical taxation, but mainly to economic reforms which increased
the national wealth. Many of the alienated customs were redeemed,
and taxation was redistributed by means of a new catasto (valuation
schedule). By the old catasto land escaped lightly, while every kind of
industry and labour was overburdened; the rich were exempted while
the poor paid heavily. Unfortunately, the new catasto perpetrated the
worst faults of the old — the poll-tax, and the additional tax on every
worker, which crippled industry and rewarded idleness. It was therefore
much less beneficial than had been hoped. In spite, however, of economic
fallacies, the Government really tried to increase the wealth of the country
and its own revenue by rescuing trade from its disastrous condition.
It was plundered by brigands within, by pirates without, and at the
ports by Custom-house officials, who extorted what duties they pleased.
The coinage was corrupt; laws against usury hindered the circulation of
capital. Manufactures hardly existed, exportation of natural products
was narrowly limited; once, when a comet appeared, it was stopped
altogether. The Giunta del Commercio, acting on the advice of Vau-
cbuUeur, a French economist, established a supreme magistracy of
commerce, which was expected to work wonders. It made commercial
treaties, started and subsidised manufactures, reformed the coinage, and
so forth. But those who had battened upon the old abuses hated the
new niagistracy, and the nobles voted a donativo as a bribe to induce
the Government to deprive it of its authority. It had ventured to
tolerate Jews ; but, as the friars assured the King that it was for this
reason he had no male heirs, the toleration was withdrawn.
In spite of the opposition of Barons and lawyers, Tanucci, as Minister
of Justice, contrived to improve the judicial system ; and no doubt the
magistrates respected direct authority rather than that of a distant
King. Tanucci tried to check bribery, moderate the ferocity of criminal
justice, impose limits on feudal tyranny ; hasten procedure, subject the
irresponsible magistrates to syndics, and punish the corrupt; but he
had only partial success. In imitation of Sardinia, an attempt was made
to codify the law, which was in a hopeless confusion of Roman law,
custom, royal and vice-regal edicts. Unfortunately the codification was
entrusted to a single incompetent lawyer, Cirillo, who had already
made himself ridiculous by attacking Muratori. His work could never
OH. XVI.
600 Tuscany under Francis of Lorraine. [i 737-65
be used ; it contained many obsolete laws, and omitted whole sections
of modern law, commercial, military, and so forth. The same fatuity
appeared in every department of government. The Famese collections,
brought from Parma, were left in dirt and confusion ; the royal architects
wasted vast sums of money and did not complete their buildings. A
pedant was appointed to describe the discoveries at Herculaneum, who
diligently compiled vast tomes on the labours of Hercules, and prosecuted
scholars who published actual descriptions of the antiquities.
Yet the Sicilies were certainly better off under Charles than they
had been for many previous centuries. The Government was well-inten-
tioned ; its Ministers were personally upright ; its direct supervision was
valuable, and some real progress was made. Fair seasons and a long
period of peace favoured prosperity^ though much distress was caused
by the terrific eruptions of Vesuvius and by earthquakes in 1738 and
1750. The King was popular, and the people fairly contented.
Tuscany, after two hundred years of stultifying Medicean govern-
ment, needed reform as much as any Italian State. It was enslaved by
ecclesiastical tyranny, and sunk in ignorance and superstition ; for the
Inquisition and the moral espionage of the friars had crushed its ancient
intellectual qualities, whose last manifestation had been in the seven-
teenth century scientific school. The commercial prosperity, the old
civic spirit and autonomy of the capital were dead ; the place of the
vigorous merchant nobles was taken by flaccid, dissipated courtiers.
Trade was slack ; unemployment and mendicancy, encouraged by " pious
benefactions^" prevailed. The provincial communes retained a measure
of self-goyemment, the peasantry, naturally more energetic, never sank
to the level of the Neapolitans; but they were oppressed by tax-
gatherers and feudal lords possessing rights to a multitude of " services,"
so that they were much in the position of medieval villeins, but with-
out their customary rights. The prosperity of Livorno benefited only
its principally foreign inhabitants, since it was cut off from the rest of
the country by internal customs-barriers.
Reform had more apparent success in Tuscany than in Naples.
The Tuscans, though not quite so lethargic and ignorant, were more
pliable than the Neapolitans, and usually acquiesced in their ruler's
dictates. The Grand Duke, Peter Leopold of Austria, son of Maria
Theresa and brother of Joseph II, was of far more decided opinions
and energetic character than Charles III, and was helped by excellent
Ministers. The work of reform was begun under Francis of Lorraine
(1737-65), by the Regency which governed for him, and especially by
Richecourt, a Lorrainer, Minister of Finance and afterwards Governor
(1747-57). He was, however, so despotic that he was at last over-
thrown by the aible Tuscans whom he kept out of office ; but his talents
and ability effected some notable improvemeats. He checked certain
1765-90] Peter Leopold Grand Duke of Tuscany. 601
feudal abuses, forbalde the creatidn of new entails, and used the
Emperor's authority to bring under control some almost independent
Imperial feudatories. Judges approved by the Government were now
to exercise feudal jurisdiction, and appeal was allowed from the feudal
to the central Courts. Finance was burdened by the Medici debt ; the
country was already over-taxed, the customs mostly farmed out ; nearly
half the revenue had to be sent to the Emperor. Administrative
economy, the unification of the public debt, and some commercial re-
forms and trade with Lombardy and Austria, slightly improved matters.
Internal customs were lowered, and agriculture encouraged by permis-
sion to export a portion of its produce. But attempts to colonise the
marshy and unhealthy Maremma district failed.
Conflict with the overweening clerical power was inevitable. The
censorship of the Press was taken from the Inquisition, and its furious
protests! led to its temporary suppression and ultimate revival on the
limited Venetian model. Clerical revenues were taxed, and a mortmain
law passed which included large pecuniary bequests. Violent Opposition
followed, especially from the monks ; but the firmness of the Govern-
ment and the moderation of Benedict XIV prevented a quarrel.
In 1765 Tuscany became nominally autonomous under its youthful
Grand Duke, Peter Leopold, in Italy called Leopold only. The
Tuscans were pleased to have a sovereign of their own, and liked the
pleasant, unassuming manners and the simple style of life of Leopold
and his Spanish wife. The unpopular Minister, Botta Adomo, who had
acted as Regent, was soon dismissed; but it was long before Leopold
could shake oflF the control of his mother and brother. In spite bf his
protests, Joseph borrowed nearly all the money in the Tuscan Treasury.
Joseph meant to be very kind : he wrote letters of affectionate advice,
asked Leopold's opinion on his own policy, sometimes visited Tuscany,
and treated Leopold's son as his own heir ; but the Grand Duke resented
all intrusion into his private affairs, and suspected evil motives in Joseph's
well-meant interferences. The brothers were alike in their admiration
of the new " philosophy," in their reforming notions,' ecclesiastical tastes,
love of symmetry, order, economy, efficiency, and of personally regulating
minute details. But Leopold, as Botta remarked, "was more Jansenist
than philosopher, and Joseph more philosopher than Jansenist."
Leopold leaned more upon ministerial advice than did Joseph; he
lacked Joseph's imperious self-confidence, but also his straightforward-
ness. Leopold was slow, timorous, cautious, and allowed his natural
suspiciousness to grow into a painful obsession. He set spies upon his
Ministers and Court, even upon his meanest subjects j and then spies
upon the spies. "Let them deceive you sometimes," wrote Joseph,
" rather than thus , torment yourself constantly and vainly." Verri said
of Leopold severely, but with truth, that "timid and tortuous, he was not
upright like his brother, but was almost indecently false and immoral."
602 Reforms in Tuscany winder Leopold. [i765-9o
In the earlier part of his reign he had excellent Ministers, of whom
the best was Pompeo Neri, Home Secretary, and then (1770) President
of the Council of State^ a prudent, logical, and far-sighted statesman,
who planned Leopold''s most successful measures. He had reformed
municipal government for Lombardy, and gave Tuscany the benefit
of his experience. Tavanti and Rucellai were good finance and eccle-
siastical Ministers. After the deaths of Neri and Rucellai (1776 and
1778), the only able and intelligent Minister was Gianni. As Leopold ^
grew more suspicious, he ceased to trust good advisers, and was deceived
by bad. His jealousy induced him to prefer less capable men, some of
whom he knew to be secretly scheming against his own policy. He
ruled principally through the Presidente del Buon Governo, an inquisi-
torial and arbitrary official, with large fiscal, magisterial and disciplinary
authority, who spied into the private affairs of the people, and kept
them in a state of nervous apprehension. The police were so feared
that even the soldiers mutinied against them.
Yet the one object of Leopold's life and interest was reform. Like
Joseph he believed that only an autocratic govei'nment could effect
this. The Government was frankly absolute, quite ignoring the last
remaining constitutional authority, the Senate, which even the Medici
had pretended to consult. Yet Leopold had abstract notions of
educating the people by pamphlets and preaching, and, when they were
sufliciently advanced, of granting a real Constitution, for which Gianni
drew up an ideal scheme. More practical was Leopold's reconstruction
of local administration, which he intended as a first step towards the
establishment of popular institutions. The Medici had allowed a rem-
nant of medieval local government to survive in the provinces, and
there were voluntary leagues amongst the Communes for mutual protec-
tion against feudal tyranny. On the basis of these existing systems,
Leopold drew up an organised scheme and set of statutes for communal
self-government, which was gradually applied all over Tuscany and
proved more successful than any of his other experiments, especially as a
means for educating the people. Florence, which the Medici had utterly
deprived of its autonomy, was the last to benefit by the new scheme.
In other directions, Leopold's secular reforms were necessarily more
remedial than constructive. Great improvements were made in the
judicial system by simplifying procedure, abolishing unnecessary tri-
bunals, checking corruption, and especially by humanising the savage
criminal law. Following Beccaria's advice, Leopold abolished torture,
confiscation,' and even the death-penalty.
Leopold could not put an end to feudalism; but he modified its
worst effects by relaxing the entail law, protecting the peasantry, and
limiting feudal jurisdiction. Rural servitude, with all its crushing
burdens of wood-cutting, service, pasturage and so on, was gradually
abolished ; and, together with personal emancipation, Leopold assisted
1765-90] Reforms in Tuscany under Leopold. 603
the emancipation of the land from its burdens of custom, entail and
mortmain. The agrarian situation was further improved by unifying
the land-tax, abolishing numerous vexatious regulations, magistracies
and internal customs, vrhich interfered with economic freedom, and per-
mitting under certain circumstances the importation and exportation of
com. Before Leopold's reign famine was endemic, and the land-owners
had no capital ; at its close landed proprietors were able to invest largely
in commercial undertakings, to their mutual profit. The morasses of
the Val di Chiana were successfully drained and cultivated, though the
Maremma was still a swamp. In reality the population was too scanty
to make the cultivation of any but good land profitable. Industrial
prosperity also increased with the abolition of the worst taxes and
monopolies — especially those of town against country — the encourage-
ment of new industries, and above all the abolition of the Arti and
other ancient commercial tribunals,: now mere forces of tyranny and
reaction. But there was little foreign trade, and Leopold, with mis-
taken economy, put down the fleet which had at least partially protected
it from pirates. Increased prosperity and administrative economy re-
covered the finances from the desperate condition in which Leopold
found them. The alienated taxes were redeemed ; and, by lowering the
customs and the price of salt, contraband trade was checked and
legitimate encouraged. In order to diminish the heavy national debt,
the Monti (Government stock) were all incorporated into one fund, and
the land-tax was applied for its redemption.
Yet Leopold never gained the real confidence of his subjects, whose
conservatism credited him with an insensate mania for innovation. The
feudal classes regretted their loss of privilege ; the people resented the
inquisitorial methods of the Government. Leopold w^ able to force
reform upon them, but not to obtain their cooperation in it. They
obeyed, but always unwillingly. Racial incompatibility made him seem
a foreigner to them, and he was never really in sympathy with Italian
sentiment. Most unpopular of all was the ecclesiastical policy which
he regarded as the crown of his life's work. Joseph himself was not
more enthusiastic; but while he, like a modem politician, aimed at
separating the functions of Church and State, and preventing the former
from infringing the rights and injuring the material interests of the
latter, Leopold, like a sixteenth century Protestant, desired to reform
the Church itself, so that it might advance the spiritu£|,l condition of his
people. He believed himself "established by God as guardian and tutor
of religion." His chief adviser, Scipione Ricci, Bishop of Pistoia and
Prato, was practieajly a Jansenist ; and so, in all but doctrinal matters,
was Leopold.
In spite of the eiForts of the Regency, Leopold found Tuscany behind
most European States in the struggle for ecclesiastical freedom. He did
not favour Concordats, believing that Rome generally profited by them,
604 Leopold's ecclesiastical policy. [ives-go
and preferred to make all changes on his own responsibility. Many of
these followed the usual lines; a ducal exequatur was enforced, clerical
taxation increased, the Inquisition suppressed, pecuniary payments to
Rome strictly limited. Ecclesiastical jurisdiction was confined to purely
spiritual matters, without power to impose temporal penalties; the
Nuncio's CoiuM; was abolished, and appeals to Rome forbidden. The
Curia's patronage to benefices with cure of souls was transferred to the
Bishops, and the religious Orders were released from dependence upon
Roman superiors, subjected to episcopal control, and no longer allowed
to compete with parochial organisation. Superfluous and ill-conducted
Houses were suppressed, and their revenues augmented the emoluments
of poor benefices. To check mendicancy and indiscriminate charity, the
number of begging friars was limited, while hospitals and other pious
foundations were placed under lay control.
In his constructive moral and religious policy, however, Leopold-
departed from the ordinary course of the anti-ecclesiastical reformer.
Here Ricci was his adviser, and in his own dioceses made experiments
which the other more conservative and orthodox Bishops could not
be induced to try. The most pressing necessity was a reform of the
convents, especially those for women, which were mainly under the
control of monks and friars and were in an utterly immoral condition.
Their number was preposterous, because social conditions forced all
women without dowries to take the veil. Ricci interfered in a flagrant
case of immorality at Prato; and the Dominicans, who were really
responsible, resisted furiously ; but, finally, the Pope agreed to withdraw
all nuns from their control. General improvements were effected by
raising the age of profession, limiting the endowments which novices
might bring to their convents, and providing occupation for the nuns by
turning convents into schools. The parish priests, divided by an almost
impassable gulf from the higher clergy of noble birth, were extremely
poor and ignorant. Reform was initiated by placing patronage in the
hands of the Bishops and the Grand Duke, by insisting on clerical
residence, raising the emoluments of poorer benefices, and founding
academies for clerical education. Meanwhile, provision was made for
secular education by substituting lay for Jesuit schools and establishing
girls' schools in convents; the condition of the Universities was also
improved.
But what chiefly infuriated the ecclesiastical party was Leopold's
interference in matters connected with worship : such as the prohibition
of burials inside churches, the abolition of flagellation and of many
unedifying local festivals, and of the innumerable "Confraternities"
(guilds of a combined religious and social character) which fostered idle-
ness, extravagande and political agitation. A single Confraternity was
established in each parish; but the people generally refused to join
it. Ricci celebrated Mass in Italian, and discouraged superstitious
1714--92] Leopold's reform schemes. — Policy of Venice. 605
dfevotions ; but his rumoured intention to remove the famous girdle
of the Virgin from Prato as spurious caused a riot, in which his palace
was sacked.
Leopold could not make reform popular ; his explanatory pamphlets
failed to touch the populace, into whose minds friars and ex-Jesuits
instilled discontent. Hoping to enlist the Tuscan clergy on his side, he
tried to revive the synodal system of church government. In 1786, a
Diocesan Synod at Pistoia passed, under Ricci's influence, extraordinarily
Liberal resolutions, even aiErming the principles of the French " Four
Articles of 1682 " — including the propositions that the temporal power
is independent of the spiritual, that a General Council is superior to a
Pope, and that th^ Pope is not infallible, even in matters of faith.
This Synod was in itself a remarkable assertion of the democratic ideal
of church government. In 1787, Leopold called a General Assembly of
the Tuscan Bishops ; but even Ricci doubted the wisdom of this step,
The Grand Duke drew up a programme for discussion, but refrained
from any personal interference. The Assembly issued a few useful, if
minor, disciplinary reforms, but was far too conservative and too much
afraid of Roman censure to consider Leopold's sweeping proposals in any
liberal spirit. He found that it was .passing time in aimless discussion,
and dismissed it. Though he might have expected the failure, it dis-?
appointed him greatly. But he was contemplating fresh efforts, when
the death of his brother ended his activities in Tuscany.
His whole reign is extraordinarily interesting as a typical experiment
in reform worked out by a personal ; autocrat in minute detail upon a
small and homogeneous State. The scheme never bore fruit; it was
destroyed, partly by : popular reaction, partly by the power of the coming
Revolution ; we may doubt whether at that date it could possibly have
berai fruitful; but, while recognising its ultimate futility and thes weak-
nesses of its author, we must admire his high ideals, industry, self-denial
and perseverance, his grasp of the problems of his age, and his insight
into modern methods of solving them.
Neither temptations nor threats could move Venice from her attitude
of formal neutrality in Western politics ; but her geographical piosition
on the Austrian route into Italy threatened her independence, since she
was obliged to grant passage to Austrian troops. She could not even
obtain the inviolability of a neutral; the War of the Spanish Succession
was partly fought within her territories, and in the later campaigns even
her expensive army could not protect them from damage. The Peace of
Utrecht surrounded her terra firma with Austrian dominions ; even her
command of the Adriatic was threatened when Austria held the Sicilies,
The Holy League and Turkish War bound her to friendliness ; but this
tie was severed when Austria abandoned her interests, and in the Peace
of Passarowitz acquiesced in her loss of the Morea. Venice therefore
606 Internal condition of Venice. [yiv^-^i
refused to renew the Holy League in 1735, and tried to hinder the efforts
of Charles VI to develop an Adriatic and Mediterranean commerce.
There were various border disputes, especially as to the patronage to the
patriarchate of Aquileiaj whose diocese embraced both Austrian and
Venetian territory.
Venice really preserved her independence because the rival Great
Powers would not permit each other to violate it. She had little vital
force left to sustain her after her last gallant struggle in the Morea.
To preserve the remains of her commerce, she was obliged, against her
traditions, to make treaties with barbarous States. Once more the old
spirit blazed up in her last Admiral, Angelo Emo, who, after immense
diflSculties, humbled Algiers and Tunis (1769; 1787). But her navy was
really decaying together with her commercial marine. Her protective
tariifs had driven away both Levantine and Mediterranean trade to the
more open ports of Genoa, Ancona, Livorno and Trieste. New com-
mercial treaties were useless, and her remaining Levantine ports were
more expensive than profitable. The nobles had abandoned commerce ;
the people no longer loved a sea-faring life ; ship-yards and arsenal were
idle. Yet in the eighteenth century the Republic accomplished her last
splendid building, the Murazzij or great marble walls, five thousand
metres long, which strengthened the shifting Lidi and protected the
harbour. Internal industries were stagnant, and agriculture' seriously
burdened, though the Venetian provinces were the most prosperous in
Italy. Yet much private wealth remained in Venice, and no signs of
exhaustion or poverty appeared in its life of luxury and display, its
feasts and carnivals, its theatres, concerts, and balls. In Goldoni^s work,
reflecting the life of the middle and lower classes, the Venetian theatre
now reached its highest development. Still, strangers from every part
flocked to share the gaieties of Venice, its life of amenity and licence,
where everyone might enjoy himself to the utmost, sure of excellent police
and sanitation, while there was no government interference with those
who did not disturb the peace or try to meddle in politics. Yet amongst
the nobles there was much discontent, which occasionally broke out in
open agitation. Many were impoverished by gambling and debauchery,
and lived miserably upon government allowances. Interbreeding^
limitation of families, strict entails, and the custom of younger sons
taking Orders, had so diminished the nobility that during this century
the members of ^ the Grand Council decreased from fourteen to seven
hundred. An attempt to infuse new blood by ennobling good pro-
vincial families failed, since few would pay the sum demanded for the
honour.
Discontented and dissolute nobles complained of the strict rule of the
Inquisitors of State, and thought that they would find independence and
prosperity if the Inquisitors' authority were restored to the Grand
Council which had delegated it. Another party, imbued with new
1714-79] Venetian decadence. — Genoa. 607
Liberal ideas, desired more liberty and disliked the secret methods of
the Inquisitors ; a Moderate group wished to limit their power without
crippling it. The wisest understood that the tyranny of the Inquisitors
alone protected the State and citizens from the licence of the worst
nobles and of ruffians of all classes.
In 1761 a particularly high-handed action of the Inquisitors caused
the Grand Council to appoint a committee of Correttori to consider
some modifications in their power. The Correttori presented two reports,
one far more stringent than the other. The populace, which appreciated
the Inquisitors, was delighted when the Grand Council adopted the
milder report. But the discontented faction of nobles was unsatisfied,
and became so turbulent that an order was issued for the early closing of
the cqfiss in which its revolutionary theories were discussed. This, how-
ever, had soon to be rescinded. In 1779, a new committee of Correttori
was appointed; its most popular member, Giorgio Pisani, played the
part of a demagogue, and even dared to appeal to the sentiment of the
popvdace. This was going too far, and the Grand Council acquiesced in
his arrest by the Inquisitors and long imprisonment. The Correttori
continued their work, and carried several minor reforms, but no sub-
stantial change was made in the Inquisitors' position.
All through the century the physical weakness and the political and
moral decadence of Venice continued; yet the changes which accom-
panied her decay were so gradual that they can only be estimated by
their ultimate results. Venice really existed on her past reputation and
on the mutual jealousies which withheld her powerful neighbours from
attacking her ; but the whole artificial fabric of her structure, since it
had no innate strength to support it from within, collapsed before the
first sharp blow from without.
Genoa, unlike Venice, had no social attractions, and her citizens lived
simply and soberly. Many were very wealthy, for her geographical
position and comparatively moderate tarilF enabled Genoa to retain more
of her ancient commercial prosperity than Venice. Some were officials
in Rome, with large shai:es in the Monti (papal Government stock);
some, as bankers, merchants and revenue officers, controlled nearly all
the finance of Naples, A narrow oligarchy still ruled the State. Once
it seemed as if the; people, still strenuous and patriotic, would displace
their feeble rulers, but after the crisis the keys of the city were restored
to the Senate, merely with a warning to take better care of them in
future. Probably the popular leaders knew that foreign Powers which
allowed the Republic to exist under an unenterprising Government
would never permit her to make an experiment in democracy.
Genoa, like Venice, preserved her autonomy only because of the
mutual jealousies of the Great Powers on either flank ; for she was even
weaker than Venice, and her geographical position as a gate of Italy
CH. XVI.
608 Genoa, Sardinia and Austria. [i'7i4-48
was almost equally valuable. She, too, preferred neutrality and obscurity,
but she did not altogether escape political trouble and danger. These
were partly caused by her ancient territorial rivalry with Savoy and her
position on the Riviera, which cut off that acquisitive Power from coast-
ward expansion, partly by her possession of Corsica, always rebellious,
and growing important, now that England and France were competing
for the control of the western Mediterranean.
But Genoa's difficulties were also due to her own unwisdom in buying
Finale from the Emperor at the moment when Savoy was bidding
for it (1714), Finale was not a commodious port and its inhabitants
were troublesome, but Savoy never forgave the interference. In the
Treaty of Worms, Charles Emmanuel III obtained the cession of all
Imperial rights upon Finale, which really meant that he might either
purchase or conquer it if he could. Any additional outlet to the sea
was valuable to Piedmont; but this clause in the treaty was really a
serious political mistake* It confirmed the belief of the Italian States
in Sardinia's insatiable ambition, and it drove Genoa to side with Sar-
dinia's enemies. In 1745 she concluded the League of Aranjuez with
France and Spain, who recklessly promised her all that she claimed from
Sardinia, whether rightfully or no. Henceforward, the Bourbon armies
were reinforced by Genoese troops, while a new route was opened for
France into Italy, and another by which Maillebois' army could coope-
rate with the Spaniards under Gages. Thus they were able to conquer
the south-west portion of Piedniont and besiege Alessandria, while Don
Philip successfully invaded Lombardy and establiished himself at Parma
and Milan. However, clever diplomacy and generalship extricated
Sardinia from her critical position, and in 1746 Genoa, abandoned by
both allies, was defenceless before Charles Emmanuel and the Austrian
General, Botta Adorno, whose father, a Genoese, had been executed by
the Republic. The feeble Senate submitted to Adorno without attempt-
ing resistance, surrendered the city gates, lodged his troops, and paid
him huge sums of money. Meanwhile Charles Emmanuel occupied many
Rivieran towns, including the coveted Finale. But Adorno was more
concerned to extract money than to consolidate his military position ;
and in December the Genoese populace rose, seized arms from the
Arsenal, and, without any assistance from their Government, drove
the Austrians from the city. The neighbouring peasantry joined to
complete the rout, and Genoa regained her independence.
Austria was eager to recover its prey, and Sardinia would not easily
surrender its conquests. In 1747 they concluded a " treaty of Genoese
Partition," and, helped by an English fleet, again attacked the town ;
but this time Genoa resisted bravely, and French ships conti'ived to
bring help. A new Franco-Spanish invasion drove Charles Emmanuel
to defend his own borders, and the siege was raised. The Peace of
Aix-la-Chapelle (1748) ignored Charles Emmanuel's Rivieran ambitions,
1729-68] Corded: King Theodore. — General Paoli. 609
and his subsequent efforts to obtain compensation there for Piacenza
proved unsuccessful. But Genoa had demonstrated a vitality and a
power to defend herself, hitherto unsuspected.
For a century and a half, Corsica had been nominally submissive, but
not really tranquil. Genoa never learned wisdom by experience; the
aim of hei; Government seemed to be to extort large taxes arid provide
offices for needy Genoese. The Corsicans were debarred from lucrative
offices and professions; order was not enforced; the country districts were
half savage and, since licenses to carry arms were cheap, were ravaged
by interminable vendettas. In a popiilation of two hundred thousand,
there were nearly a thousand murders annually.
Famine and additional taxation caused a fresh revolt in 1729. The
Corsicans mastered aU but a few coast towns, proclaimed their inde-
pendence, and created governors and a General Assembly. At Genoa's
request, Austria sent troops, which obtained a temporary submission;
but Genoa violated the conditions of peace, and the revolt broke out
again. Internal dissensions and the difficulty of obtaining provisions
and munitions caused the Corsicans to seek external aid ; and in 1736
they elected Baron Theodore von Neuhof, a rich Westphalian adven-
turer, as King under constitutional limitations. It was a rather farcical
sovereignty ; and Theodore, though weU intentioned, found the situation
impossible. He spent his time and energies in travelling to Holland
to procure food and war material for his straitened kingdom. He was
finally frightened oiF by a French army which, at Genoa's appeal,
succeeded in obtaining the partial submission of the Corsicans (1739).
France had begun to realise the importance of Corsica in the Mediter-
ranean, and, though not yet prepared to seize it herself, meant to acquire
sufficient influence there to smooth the way for future annexation.
During the War of the Austrian Succession, English ships landed
Rivarolo, a Corsican refugee, on the island, and the rebellion broke out
afresh. England, Sardinia and Austria issued proclamations in favour
of Corsican independence, and numerous foreign troops appeared on the
island, but were withdrawn after the Treaty of Aix. In 1 755, the Corsicans
chose as their General Pasquale de' Paoli, the son of Giacinto, a former
leader who had volimtarily retired to facilitate the settlement of 1739.
A Constitution, extraordinarily modem for the eighteenth century, was
drawn up ; it established a really popular Government, and was loyally
carried out by Paoli, who was President with large, but constitutional,
powers. Order and justice were restored, assassinations became rare,
tfsation was low, material prosperity increased, the people were educated
and civilised. Paoli corresponded with England, where his constitutional
government was admired; but France was now determined to obtain
Corsica in order to counterbalance the Mediterranean possessions of
England. First, she obtained Genoa's permission for a military occupa-
tion, and then (1768) she bought the island outright. England was
C. M. H. VI. CH. XVI. gg
610 PaoWs departure and return. [1769-1807
occupied with the American War ; Sardinia da^ed not defy France ; and
Corsica only received irregular help in her last gallant struggle for
liberty. The Corsicans fought furiously; Paoli showed brilliant general-
ship, and the French were defeated frequently; but ultimately their
military superiority overwhelmed the scanty resources of the islanders.
Assisted by some treacherous Corsicans, they at last utterly defeated
Paoli at Pontenuovo (May, 1769). Rather than involve the people in
useless sufferings, he and other leaders quitted the island, and the French
were soon in complete possession. After a period of severity, they insti-
tuted a moderate government, which made the Corsicans fairly contented
and prosperous. Paoli settled in England with a government pension ;
he became an honoured member of Samuel Johnson's circle, and lived
peacefully, except when the French Revolution unfortunately tempted
him back to Corsica (1790). He was received with enthusiasm and made
President of the Department, but soon learned that the principles of
Liberty were not to be extended to the subject province. Before long
the Republic proclaimed him a traitor; and in 1794 he ceded the
island to England, which held it for two years. Paoli died in England
in 1807. One of the few heroic and romantic figures of the eighteenth
century, he might, under more favourable circumstances, have been the
Washington of Corsica. His period of rule, with its loyal effort after
constitutional government and devoted patriotism, provokes more
sympathy than any other episode in contemporary Italian history.
611
CHAPTER XVII.
SWITZERLAND FROM THE TREATY OF AARAU TO
THE FRENCH REVOLUTION.
For two centuries Switzerland had ceased to play any part as a Great
Power — since 1515, when in the battle of Marignano the Swiss had after
their famous Italian campaigns been defeated by France with the help
of Venice and forced to withdraw from Lombardy. Peace was made with
France in 1516 ; and in 1521 an alliance followed which for Switzerland
was to be the beginning of centuries of subjection, and which once
more hired out the prowess and fame of her soldiers for the pay of
foreign Powers. It was this French alliance and the foreign service of
her sons which chiefly occupied Switzerland in her external relations
during the eighteenth century, together with the maintenance of her
neutrality and independence throughout the numerous great wars of
that period. On the time of her greatest military glory there followed
immediately the beginning of the Reformation, which occasioned two
centuries of religious strife in Switzerland. But the wars of religion, as
is shown below, came to a termination with the Treaty of Aarau (1712).
The cleavage between Catholics and Protestants, indeed, continued for
some decades, until the new compact with France in 1777 ; but it had
changed in character and become purely a question of the balance of
political power between the two sides. VVith the opening of the
eighteenth century the period of religious wars had ended in Switzerland
as in the rest of the Christian world. In their place class wars became
more and more prominent until the outbreak of the great Revolution,
which had been advancing on parallel lines with the general intellectual
awakening {Aufkldrung). Such are the characteristic notes of Swiss
history in the eighteenth century : during which the French alliance,
foreign military service, neutrality, the class wars, and the intellectual
awakening, alike leave their impress upon the national life.
The alliance with France was for Switzerland the most important
affair of the century before the great Revolution, and occupied those
CH. XVII. 39—2
612 Switzerland and the French alliance. [u44-i655
concerned during the greater part of the period in question. The
preceding treaties with France, by which Switzerland entered into
relations as an independent Power with a foreign State not included
in the German Empire, were the result of the military prowess exhibited
by the Swiss on an occasion of very ancient date in their history — the
battle of St Jacob on the Birs in 1444. At the commencement of the
connexion, however, in the course of the fifteenth century, the Swiss did
not serve the purposes of France exclusively, but still pursued ends of
their own. When, after Marignano, the Swiss again made peace with
France, the French alliance of' May 5, 1621, marks a complete change
in Swiss policy. Switzerland had ceased to occupy a place among the
Great Powers, find had fallen to the position of a recruiting-ground
for French mercenaries. This state of things had been brought about
by the propensity of the Swiss for foreign service, and by a greed of
yearly subsidies to which their soldiers and statesmen alike had been
accustomed by France. Under this curse they remained until the
absolute upheaval' of all ways of thought and political action in the
great Revolution. After taking part in the numerous wars of France
with Charles V (1521-44), the Swiss, themselves divided into two camps
by the Reformation, were fighting against each other in the French
religious wars (1562-90) both for the League and the Huguenots. But
Henry IV, after putting an end to the French religious struggle, in 1602
further succeeded in once more uniting the Swiss of both confessions in a
common alliance with France. This union, concluded for the lifetime of
the King and of his son Louis XIII and for eight years after, endured
until 1651. In 1663 was effected another alliance, the last before the
period covered by the present volume ; and it is with the renewal of this
that we are now particularly concerned.
The reasons which once more brought about a general alliance with
Switzerland differed to some extent from those of 1521. France had for
some time past provoked bitter complaints from Switzerland, partly by
employing, in violation of the agreement between them, Swiss troops
for attacks on foreign countries, and partly by delaying payment of the
yearly subsidy to the Governments and even the soldiers' pay. Moreover,
the Treaty of Westphalia had by its recognition of Switzerland as a
sovereign JPower awakened a feeling of independence in the Swiss Govern-
ments which asserted itself as against France. It was,therefore,unanimously
resolved by the Diet, in 1651 and 1652, that there should be no renewal
of the alliance till these grievances had been redressed. In 1653 Solo-
thum was, nevertheless, persuaded to promise a renewal of the alliance
with France ; in 1654 Luzern followed suit, and in 1655 the remaining
Catholic cantons. The Catholic districts, lacking both money and ways
of earning it, were moved by the old passion for foreign service and its
gains. Hereupon the Protestant cantons also turned back to France, but
on political grounds — to avert the dangers of a one-sided combination
1656-1713] The Treaty of Aarau and its effects. 613
between the Catholic cantons and France— the more readily as in the
Third Religious War (1656), sometimes called the War of Rapperswyl
or the First Vilmergen War, they had been overcome by the Catholic
cantons unaided, and had no other ally of equal standing in view. Thus
a new general alliance with France was concluded on September 24, 1663.
This alliance, like that of 1602, was concluded not only for the life of
the reigning monarch (Louis XIV) but also for that of his son and for
eight years after. But, before the King felt his end near, no member of
his family remained to succeed him but his infant great-grandson, after-
wards Louis XV. In order, therefore, that affairs might be left on a
satisfactory footing for the King's successor, negotiations were opened
in 1713 for a renewal of the alliance with the Swiss. In the meantime,
however, the situation had changed in such a way that the Catholic cantons
were quite ready for a renewal of the league, but not so the Protestant,
notably Zurich and Bern. In the previous year, 1712, the Fourth and
last Religious War in Switzerland had been waged, terminating in the
Treaty of Aarau (August 11, 1712) between Zurich and Bern and the
five Catholic cantons of Luzem, Uri, Schwyz, Unterwalden, and Zug.
In this War, the Second Vilmergen War (which, like its predecessor
in 1656, arose out of the dispute as to the relations of the county and
abbacy of Toggenburg to the Empire), the wheel of fortune spun round:
the Five Cantons were defeated by Zurich and Bern and were routed a
second time by Bern alone ; and the supremacy of the victorious cantons
was estabhshed in the Treaty of Aarau. Apart from other arrangements,
the " free bailiwicks " {freie Aemter) of Aargau were ceded to Bern and
Zurich, in order to secure the connexion between their territories, while
the Catholic cantons were, with the exception of a small remainder,
excluded from the resettlement. Bern was further admitted to a share
in the control of the common prefectures {Vogteien) of Aargau and
Thurgau, in order to establish the preponderance of the Protestants as
governing cantons. Such treatment was unbearable to the Catholics, not
so much on religious grounds as in view of the political disadvantage
involved and, last but not least, because the lucrative sway over the
" free bailiwicks " thus slipped from their hold. They therefore set to
work again on their little separate leagues, but all to little avail. Then
came the offer from France for the renewal of her alliance, very oppor-
tunely for the Catholic cantons if it could be renewed with them alone,
so that they could obtain the powerful aid of France against their
Protestant rivals. The French Court would really have preferred a
general alliance which should also include the Protestants; but the
Protestants did not desire it, and the French ambassador in Switzerland,
Du Luc, who regarded Zurich and Bern with detestation because of
their obstinacy and arrogance, pushed the interests of the Catholic
cantons, giving his Court to understand that the Protestants would soon
join. But their hatred of France had increased since 1663, and now
614 Alliance between France and the Catholic cantons. [i663-i7i4
they had in view a substitute for the French alliance. To the list of
hardships inflicted by France were now added the curtailment of the
privileges granted to the Swiss in France by earlier treaties, and the
check imposed upon commerce ; and, above all, the Protestants of
Switzerland, as of every other country, were exasperated by the Revocation
of the Edict of Nantes (1685). On the other hand, Bern had concluded
a treaty of alliance with the States General in 1712; the Grisons had
done the same in 1713; with England, too, the Protestant cantons were
on a friendly footing; and there was even some talk of the Maritime
Powers taking up again Cromwell's idea of uniting in one great Protestant
league all the Protestant countries and communities of Europe. This made
it all the easier for the Swiss Protestant cantons to give play to their
natural dislike of France and refuse to league themselves with her.
Thus the alliance which she desired was concluded with the Catholic
cantons only, precisely as they had intended, but not without their
having to submit to her supremacy. The fifth clause of the treaty
concluded on May 5, 1715, contains a stipulation that in the event of
disputes arising among the Catholics or between them and the Protestants,
the King of France shall mediate, and eventually have the right of en-
forcing his will — much as in the later days of the Act of Mediation.
There was, besides, a secret article or bond, the TriicMibund — ^a name
given to it because it was enclosed in a tin capsule — and in course of
time applied to the whole treaty. In this bond the King promised the
restoration of Catholicism, that is to say, the restoration to the Catholic
cantons of their recently forfeited prerogatives — the control of the free
bailiwicks and their ascendancy over the Protestant cantons — in a word,
the much-vext " Restitution " ; the admission of Zurich and Bern to the
alliance being made conditional on their consent to it. The whole
ignominious treaty was kept secret, not only from the Protestants but
even from the popular assemblies (Landsgememden) of the Catholic
cantons. The supplementary agreement was concluded by the French
ambassador absolutely without the King's knowledge, because in default
of it no alliance at all might have been brought about with the Catholics.
Up to the time of the alliance between the Catholic cantons and
France there had still been no settlement effected between the victorious
Protestant cantons and the Abbot of St Gallen as to the Toggenburg,
which was situate in his dominions. This was due to the fact that the
Emperor took the part of the Abbot and the Catholics. The dangers
generally besetting the Protestants had been greatly augmented by the
Treaties of Rastatt and Baden (in Aargau) in 1714 between the
Catholicising Louis XIV and the Catholic Emperor. In the case of this
particular dispute of the Protestants with the Abbot, the Imperial Diet
wished to intei*vene in favour of the Abbot as a Prince of the Empire —
a proceeding contrary to Article VI of the Treaty of W^estphalia. When
the Catholics formed the alliance with France, however, the Emperor
1708-62] French efforts for a general Swiss alliance. 615
lost patience and ordered the Abbot to come to terms with Zurich and
Bern ; and after the death of that headstrong personage, a peace was
finally concluded on the Toggenburg question (June 15, 1718).
On September 1 of the year 1715, in which he had :;oncluded
the alliance with the Catholic cantons, Louis XIV died. Two months
previously Du tuc had been sent as ambassador to Vienna. But the
policy of France was still to win over the Protestant cantons to the
alliance. It was of great importance that a general alliance with the
Swiss should be effected, not only in order to make the fullest use possible
of them in the interests of France, but also to draw them away from the
side of her opponents, the Emperor and the Maritime Powers. This
was the great end pursued by all the succeeding French ambassadors
to Switzerland; and, numerous as they were and various as were the
principles advanced by them, not one of them attained this object until
the occurrence of an event of European importance, the First Partition
of Poland. This so terrified the Swiss that they yielded and sought
protection from a like fate in a general alliance with France. Before
this, on the occasion of the expiration, in 1723, of the Treaty of alliance
of 1663, Basel opened negotiations on her own account, in order to
propitiate France and the Catholic cantons, whom she had alike offended
by favouring the enterprise of General Mercy in 1709. Further attempts
were made in 1738, and in 1756, when Kaunitz, at that time ambassador
in Paris, had effected an alliance between Austria and France against
Frederick the Great, which increased the dangers threatening the Pro-
testant cantons, while it furnished the five Catholic cantons with fresh
hopes of restitution and led to a renewal of the " Borromean " League of
the year 1586. Chavigny seized this moment to treat with the Zurich
Burgomaster Heidegger; but the negotiations again fell through. In 1759
Zurich rejected an ofier on the subject made by Roll, the Schultheiss of
Solothiu:n. The last fruitless effort was made in 1762, after which there
was for ten years no thought of renewing the French alliance. As one
attempt succeeded another, the most various political principles were
followed. The experience of 1663 seemed to teach that the Catholics could
be won over by pecuniary considerations, and that the Protestants would
follow of themselves for fear of being left to stand alone. So Du Luc
(who was ambassador from 1708 to 1715) concluded; but his expectations
were in part defeated because the Protestants had meanwhile gained the
support of the Maritime Powers. Bonnac (ambassador from 1727 to 1737)
had to try another expedient, namely that of winning over the smaller
strongholds of the Reformed faith and abandoning Zurich and Bern ; but
this measure was prevented by the strong influence wielded by the two
leading cantons over the rest. Bonnac expressed the opinion, in a
memorandum to his Court in 1733, that the general alliance, useful as it
would be, was not essential ; a perpetual peace might be made to serve
instead, as it had ten years before. But, for the next few years, dm-ing
616 Fears of Austria.-^General alliance with France. [1705-77
which France was involved in continual wars with Austria and Prussia —
the Polish and Austrian Wars of Succession and the Silesian Wars— she
required not only peace with Switzerland but direct assistance from her,
which nothing short of an alliance could ensure, so that Bonnac's counsels
of renunciation seemed merely a case of sour grapes. Mariane, charge
d'affaires, took a quite different line ; he concentrated his efforts upon the
two chief cantons, whose lead the lesser Protestant cantons always followed.
But no plan was of any avail ; each attempt broke down over the question
of the Restitution, upon which France invariably insisted, and which
Zurich and Bern would not accept at any price. Bonnac had, it is true,
cancelled one part of the stipulation : Bremgarten and Mellingen were to
be exempt from the Restitution so as to secure the territorial connexion
between Zurich and Bern ; but Heidegger would not even accede to -this
proposal. There was, however, nothing to prevent the Protestant districts
from concluding with France an agreement as to the engagement of
soldiers (Militdrkapitulation), which they did on May 8, 1764..
With the year 1772 came the First Partition of Poland between
Austria, Prussia, and Russia, which terrified the Swiss all the more,
because at the time the conduct of the Emperor Joseph JI had roused
their mistrust, while it made the Protestants doubtful of Prussia also,
whose King had hitherto been a good friend to them. Leopold I (1705)
had revived the old Austrian designs on Switzerland ; Joseph II followed
in his steps and proved a dangerous neighbour to the Swiss ; and there
was a rumour that Austria and France had already planned a partition
of Switzerland like that of Poland. The whole aflf'air of the alliance
of the two Powers, secured by Kaunitz' treaty and cemented by the
marriage of Marie- Antoinette with the future King Louis XVI (1770),
looked suspicious ; and the Chancellor's journey through Switzerland in
1777, shortly before the conclusion of the French alliance with the Swiss,
gave fresh cause for anxiety. The. feeling aroused in Switzerland by the
Partition of Poland was immediately turned to account by France ; and
in that very year she made fresh attempts to obtain a renewal of the
alliance. Not till after the death of Louis XV, on May 10, 1774, and the
accession of Louis XVI, who as a man of upright character dealt honestly
with the Protestants, would they consent to come to terms. In 1776,
for the first time for 113 years, a conference of all the cantons was held
to consider an alliance with France, which led to the "Treaty of
alliance between the Crown of France and the States of all Switzerland,"
concluded on May 28, 1777, The Protestants secured, first and foremost^
that there should be no question of restitution, and, secondly, though the
TrilcJeUbund was not formally annulled, a clear statement in the preamble
that by the Treaty all the States of the Confederation were united in
one and the same alliance with France. The part of mediator, so
humiliating to the Swiss, which had been assigned to France in the
TrucMiburid, she now abandoned ; in return, it was agreed that the
1319-1798] Conditions ^f French alliance.-Fordgn service. Gl7
privileges of the Swiss in France, which were very unpopular thei'e,
should be considered in detail with a view to their revision or removal.
For the rest, a perpetual peace was stipulated for, as in the alliance of
1663, and laid down as a treaty obligation. France had the right, in
case of need, of raising any number of recruits not exceeding 6000 in
Switzerland, beyond the number of Swiss soldiers agreed upon by
capitulation. Neither country was to allow enemies of the other to
pass through or to remain in her territory. Swiss neutrality must at all
costs be maintained, as towards every Power. Geneva and Neuchatel,
despite the wishes of Switzerland, were not admitted as parties to this
treaty — the former on account of the revolutionary tendency of Geneva
politics even before the French Revolution, the latter as being a
dependency of the King of Prussia.
Instead of France acting as mediator in the interest of the internal
security of Switzerland, this was to be ensured by an agreement between
the cantons themselves with regard to matters coming under the cog-
nisance of the Federal law, the procedure in the event of disputes between
Estates or relating to jurisdictions held in common, the preservation of
security at home, and the administration of the Federal law. For this
purpose, at the general meeting of the Diet in 1776 a so-called " Plan
of Protection " (Tuitionsplan) for the French alliance was drafted, but
in the end abandoned. Neither was anything gained by subsequent
negotiations with France in regard to the question of privileges ; so that
Switzerland left off treating with her on the subject.
The alliance of 1777 was concluded for fifty years ; in 1798, after the
great Revolution, when the Helvetic Republic was set up and Switzerland
came under the yoke of France, its place was taken, in widely different
circumstances, by a fresh compact, likewise termed a treaty of alliance.
Foreign military service on the part of the Swiss dates from the
beginning of the fourteenth century, that is to say, from the early days
of the Swiss Confederation. Soldiers who travelled about from one
foreign war to another were called Reisldufer (travellers). So early as
1319, soon after the battle of Morgarten, which laid the foundation of
Swiss military glory, warlike men marched from the three original cantons
of Switzerland to join in the battles of the valiant House of Visconti,
which had risen to the mastery of Milan. In 1373 no less than 3000
Swiss entered the service of another Visconti of Milan, The military
renown of the Swiss grew and increased, notably through the battles of
Sempach and Nafels, the last great fights for liberty, in which they broke
away from Austria and raised themselves to the rank of an independent
Power on a footing of ecjuality with Austria and other States. So much
the more the soldiers of Switzerland were sought after by foreign rulers
and took service under them. This increase of mercenary service gave
rise to two eyils which in time became disastrous — the fact that the Swiss
CH, XVII.
618 Progress of the foreign service system. [1373-1600
occasionally found themselves fighting on opposite sides ; and the system
of yearly subsidies (Pensionenwesen, as it was later termed). The former
result became increasingly difficult to avoid, as the military service of the
Swiss grew and spread on all sides and their soldiers were in constant
demand ; so that influential intermediaries were continually being called
in, to obtain satisfactory conditions or to outbid rival claimants. Still,
it was a long time before the Swiss cantons took upon themselves this
office of go-between. When Louis XI first drew them away from
Germany to France and involved them in wider political issues, he turned
their steps in this direction, in order that he might gain military rights
over Switzerland. This came about by the Treaty of 1474, which affiards
the first example of a military capitulation; it was called an alliance,
though, so far as the obligations on the Swiss were concerned, it was
nothing more than a military capitulation binding them to furnish 6000
men — just as subsequent military capitulations were called alliances or
unions down to that between Switzerland and France in 1764, which, for
the first time so far as we are aware, is called a military capitulation.
The Treaty of 1474 was followed by military capitulations of the cantons
with various other Powers, often hostile to each other. Besides this
foreign service regulated by treaty^ there continued in practice that of
the private mercenary, who fought for countries with which there was as
yet no capitulation, so long as he could get his pay or more especially
get higher pay than those in treaty service. . The numbers of Swiss on
foreign service accordingly became excessive; with their numbers the evils
increased which are inseparable from any such relation, especially when
complicated by the coexistence of different and mutually contrasting
kinds of service. Besides the treaty troops there came to be irregular
companies recruited without authorisation, not to mention the many who
enlisted independently and were simply enrolled among the national
troops of the foreign State. Among these last there were even vaga-
bonds who had provided themselves with a uniform and a Swiss name.
Thus, by the side of treaty service, Reislaufen developed into individual
enlistment ; and the entire practice, under the name of foreign service,
contributed to drain Switzerland for wars in which the country had no
concern. In the French wars against the Empire the Swiss were
"Frenchmen" or "Imperialists" ; in the French Religious Wars they were
^'Leaguers" or " Huguenots," and so forth; and thus it came to their
having to fight against each other and to shed each other's blood. On
the other hand, in addition to the yearly subventions payable by virtue
of the capitulations to the canton, its Government, or the people, there
was a continuous and increasing stream of payments and gratuities 01
every description on account of free companies and other levies. As the
military capitulations succeeded one another, it was easy to include in
their terms such unlawful payments, according as this or that party
became predominant in the canton ; while other receipts might in their
1460-1503] Its increasing evils. 619
turn be declared illicit, supposing it were desired to retain them in
practice while abandoning them as obligatory by treaty.
But, the more general the prevalence of foreign military service,
the more patent were its disadvantages: the country was sapped of
its economic strength, especially of the labour required for agriculture ;
its youth were running wild; while avarice, idleness, luxury and self-
indulgence grew, until finally the whole nation was possessed by an
unhealthy spirit of discontent and demoralisation. The Diet had
opposed foreign service so soon as it began to sissume serious dimensions
— even as early as 1460, when it was exclusively the affair of private
individuals, and when capitulations were as yet unheard of; and measures
were set on foot against general enlisting abroad. Subsequent decrees
of the Diet on the subject, after military capitulations had become
customary, were directed against "wild," i.e. promiscuous, foreign service,
and "wild" pensions not authorised by capitulations. This form of
foreign service and pensions had to be withstood, not only because
it seemed imlawful, but because it was altogether without limit or
restriction, and therefore all the more dangerous. The capitulations
had at least introduced some law and order into foreign service ; troops
so engaged were put under special officers and special jurisdiction ; they
might not be broken up and sent on any service whatever, neither could
they be sent oversea, nor employed for attack on other countries ; and the
agreements contained definite provisions as to the rates and recipients of
the subsidies, which could be controlled accordingly. The Free Companies,
on the contrary, were mustered and employed as the supreme authority
thought fit; they must be ready to serve anywhere, for that was the
purpose indicated by their name ; it was naturally still easier to dispose
as might seem best of the individual recruits. The " wild " pensions were
infecting the whole country like a slow poison, perceptible only in its
efiects and perhaps not even then, since intrigues and opposition arose
which proved unexpectedly traceable to the same hidden agency. The
excrescences of foreign service at least were attacked in later decrees of
the Diet, and when these had been removed there was less of foreign
service and its evils. Such was notably the subject and spirit of the
decrees of the Diet enacted after the BurgUndian Wars and diuring
the Italian campaigns, of which those of Jidy 18, 1495, and July 23,
1503, are typical and on that account famous. This tendency can
be traced further in the action of Zwingli, whose reforms bore not
only upon religion, but first and foremost upon the question of foreign
service ; not till he had reformed this did he set about a reformation of
the faith. His attack was, however, directed not only against promiscuous
foreign service, but against the whole system of riiercenary service and of
subventions, even as settled by treaty; and, following his lead, those
cantons which had adopted the Reformed faith abstained from such
agreements, notably Zurich, also Bern, etc. ; but the rest soon fell back
CH. XVII.
620 Motives of foreign service. [i497-i792
into their old ways. Nothing, not even the decrees of the Diet, was
of permanent avail in the face of the universal, deep-seated system of
self-subjection to the foreigner which had taken root in Switzerland and
thriven on the glory of the Burgundian victories and the still greater
renown of the Milanese campaigns. Reislwufen and illicit subsidies could
not be abandoned for any length of time, because they were part and
parcel of the whole system of foreign service and pensions, legalised or
otherwise. If the one were permitted, how could the other be criminal .''
So these abuses sprang up again and flourished, until by the eighteenth
century almost all foreign service was undertaken by capitulation. All
interest, too, in foreign service culminated in the question of money,
Origipally, even the Reislaufen of individuals had been prompted by other
interests, by skill and delight in warfare, although from the first money
played an important part, as it was the poorer and remoter and the high-
land cantons which had mostly furnished the mercenaries. The wealthy
Protestant towns might well preach against foreign service ; but even they
could never quite put a stop to it. The capitulations too were for some
time largely directed by political interests, according to the existing bias
in favour of one or the other of the belligerent foreign Powers : the
Swiss came to terms with France and not with Burgundy against whom
they wished to make war, although Burgundy was wealthier and able to
pay a higher price. The cantons allied themselves with France or with
the Empire according to their sympathies ; and, in the French Religious
Wars, with the Guises or the Huguenots according to the form of their
faith., Thus, imtil the eighteenth century it was a question more or less
of political considerations ; but thenceforth military treaties were simply
business transactions settled a,ccording to the price offered. So soon as
the money interest was predominant and came to turn the scale in the
conclusion of capitulations, fraud and corruption were the order of the
day in carrying them out ; promotion was for sale, the strength of the
companies was overstated in order to pocket more pay, and so on. Before
the eighteenth century foreign service had undergone another change in
common with the general military system. After the Treaty of Westphalia
absolutism developed, and with it came the establishment of standing
armies. Hitherto, regiments had been drawn up and disbanded according
to the contingencies of foreign war or of a period of war : those were the
days of hired foot-soldiers (Lemdsknfichte}. Absolutism on the other hand
required, to maintain its internal integrity and external independence,
perpetually mobilised troops, like those of a standing army. Thus
foreign service became constant. So early, as 1497 the first standing
Swiss guard of 100 men was formed ; but this was simply a body-guard
for the King, such as had been customary from ancient times : the other
Swiss regiments were disbanded as occasion demanded. From the reign
of Louis XIV onwards, however, these regiments, too, werie permanent,
although particular corps were occasionally discharged ; and finally, the
1474-1792] Final judgment on the system. 621
Swiss Guard was merely the elite of the standing Swiss regiments. It
ended gloriously (August 10, 1792) as a last witness to ancient Swiss
loyalty and valour. The Swiss regiments of other monarchs thus also
became standing armies.
Such is the note of Swiss foreign service in the eighteenth century :
its conditions entirely regulated by capitulation, a business transaction
pure and simple between rulers and ruled, and essentially a standing
service. Still, it was France which, after having first introduced the Swiss
to official foreign service, was chiefly instrumental in keeping them to it.
The system had thus reached its zenith, and the returns for foreign
regiments and annual subsidies their highest point: in 1748, 60,000
Swiss are stated to have been iii the service of foreign Powers, and for
1761 and 1762 the expenditure of the French Government on sub-
ventions and bribes is given at 1,400,000 livres {= £55,4i\.G. 13*.i4d.).
According to Waser, between 1474 and 1715 the Swiss sacrificed 700,000
men to France, receiving in return 1146 million gulden (==£"95,500,000)
in pay and pensions.
IVom a political point of view there can be but one verdict as to the
system of which Swiss history offers so conspicuous an example — whole-
hearted condemnation. Even private military service cannot be approved ;
for all military service is the service of the State, and as such properly
given only by the subjects of the country to which it is rendered. But in
regard to capitulations the case is self-evident : they decade an entire
State to the position of a hireling soldier of another, and > simply show
that it has no work worth doing to offer its citizens and is incapable of
making them fight its own battles. As Rudolf Reding, Landammann of
Schwyz, said in the Diet of 1492, " a Swiss ought to have a hole " (e.e.
way out) ; but it was for Switzerland herself to lead forth her sons in
her own interests. Neither is the argument admissible that foreign
service contributed to the safety of Switzerland ; she would have been
safe, and more than safe, had she known how to keep her sons together
and turn their energies to her own account.
There was no reason why neutrality, after it had once been adopted by
Switzerland, should not have been combined with foreign service — as the
term neutrality was understood in those days. Swiss neutrality dates from
the abandonment of independent warfare after the battle of Marignano,
the effects of which were enhanced by the further defeats at Bicocca and
Pavia, sustained shortly afterwards in, the service of France. This occasion
determined the character of the neutrality observed from that time : it
simply involved abstention on the part of Switzerland from wars in her
own right ; but the Swiss forces were not required to desist from fighting
in foreign services. There was consequently a continuance of capitula-
tions tod of Reislaitfen according to a man's own choice; which latter
was indeed forbidden, though not out of consideration for other States
but as prejudicial to the nation itself. The capitulations, express agieer
OH. XVII.
622 Character of Swiss neutrality. [i5ii-i763
ments for assistance in foreign wars, increased to the exclusion of all
other forms of foreign service. Switzerland held aloof from wars in her
own right, although she defended herself from harm by means of foreign
armies. Such was the character of Swiss neutrality from its origin
throughout the early history of Switzerland. No other form of neutrality
was required from her by the other Powers, aU of which had their part in
the Swiss capitulations and were only concerned to see that no exceptions
were made in favour of their opponents. Although Switzerland took no
part by means of armies of her own in the Thirty Years' War, this was
not because such an abstention was required by the terms of her neutrality,
but for reasons of policy, (suggested by France, that is to say, Richelieu),
inasmuch as her own neutrality and territorial immunity would otherwise
have been risked, and there would have been danger of her own soil
becoming the seat of war. Until the Treaty of Westphalia, moreover^
it was even held to be compatible with the neutrality of Switzerland
that she should allow friendly Powers to march through her territory
for purposes of war, as was chiefly done in the case of French troops.
Subsequently, howevet, after Gustavus Adolphus had nearly made war
upon the Catholic cantons because they had granted a passage to Spanish
troops, the interpretation of the term neutrality was altered, and Switzer-
land dosed her territory to the passage of foreign armies. Foreign
service, on the other hand, was still looked upon as permissible until
last century, when it was in its turn forbidden as a breach of neutralityj
which term now excludes all support, direct or indirect, of the military
operations of a belligerent.
In its numerous wars of the eighteenth century in particular, an
important part is played by the foreign service and neutrality of Switzer-
land ; and on both heads important negotiations and transactions result
from abuses and breaches, claims and questions. There were the three
Wars of Succession — the Spanish, the Polish and the Austrian War
(ending with the Treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle), and, following close on the
last two, came the three Silesian Wars, including as the Third the Seven
Years' War ; so that throughout the whole century one war followed as
it were on the heels of another, until the great Revolution broke out and
along with it a general war of the nations. In the Wars of Succession it
was chiefly France and Austria which were opposed to each other, with
their respective allies, Spain, Sardinia, and the States General; in the
Seven Years' War it was Austria, France, and the rest, against Prussia.
Switzerland was constantly taking part on both sides by virtue of her
foreign service — the Catholic cantons for the French, and the Protestant,
notably Zurich and Bern, for the Emperor and the States General;
Austria demanded, not only that the French regiments of Swiss should
confine themselves to the defence of France, but that Switzerland should,
in conformity with the standing agreement of 1611, herself undertake
the defence of the Austrian territory indicated in its provisions;
1690-1777] Complaints of infringements of neutrality. 623
but France merely conceded that her Swiss regiments should not be
used against such teirritoiy, while constantly employing them to attack
her enemies, and even sending regiments from the Protestant cantons as
the case might be against the Emperor or Prussia. Questions incessantly
arose in regard to the neutrality of Switzerland, to the protection
of that country from molestation by the belligerents, whether in the
north, on the Rhine, or in the War of the Spanish Succession in the
south also, as against Sardinia ; and Switzerland claimed neutrality not
only for her own territory but also for the Austrian Forest Cantons and
more remote territories and districts in the north and for Savoy in the
south, inasmuch as the " security " of these neighbouring regions con-
tributed to assure her own safety. The question of declaring Savoy
neutral dates therefore from this time (actually from 1690). The cession
of the Austrian Forest Cantons to Switzerland came frequently under
discussion ; Bern on one occasion (1734) treated with Austria on the
subject ; but no settlement was reached in either direction. Such were
the main points on which the negotiations and transactions during these
wars depended. In particular, the following instances may be cited. In
the War of the Spsiiiish Succession the neutrality of Switzerland was twice
infringed: once, in 1702, by the French, when, in order to secure a passage
over the Rhine, they occupied the Schusterinsel, including the part of
it belonging to Basel; and, again, in 1709, by the Austrian General
Mercy, who descended upon Alsace by way of Basel territory. In the
latter case France and the Catholic cantons, already specially attached
to her, were stirred against Basel for permitting the passage, and Basel
thereupon strove to recover the goodwill of both by her intervention in
favour of the French alliance. In the subsequent wars there were com-
plaints in particular of abuses in the employment of Swiss regiments in
the French service — ^by their being employed for purposes of attack, in
the Wars of the Polish and Austrian Successions against AOstria, and in
the Seven Years' War against Prussia. In the latter instance, cotaplaints
were made not only by the enemy but by the Swiss themselves, i.e. by the
Protestant cantons, which, in spite of having hitherto refused the alliance
with France, nevertheless had soldiery in her service; but then Frederick II
was regarded by them as the hero of the century and the inventor of
a new art of war — especially by the Bernese, who had been among his
godfathers. In 1774, another abuse was committed on the part of
France — by her sending Swiss regiments oversea to Corsica to put down
the struggle of the islanders for liberty ; and this eventually led to the
conclusion of the general alliance with France in 1777.
With the eighteenth century begins in Switzerland, as elsewhere, that
long succession of conflicts between class and class which continued
throughout the century until their culmination in the French Revolution,
that historic class struggle. The way for this was prepared by a general
624 Growth of oligarchies in Switzerland. [isia-ivis
intellectual movement, the Aufkldning as it was termed, which made
its appearance in Switzerland also in the second half of the century.
The class conflicts were the result of the development of oligarchies, a
reaction against the suppression of the privileges acquired by particular
classes and families. This growth of oligarchies began with the Reforma-
tion, ijiasmuch as, in the first instance, public authority was concentrated
in the hands of the State at the expense of the Church, which was set .aside,
and, again, as the tendency of the times was in the direction of absolutism
which the Reformation had thus far helped to foster. Switzerland was
specially exposed to this tendency, as being closely connected with other
countries by means of her foreign service, especiaJly with France, whose
King Louis XIV had brought absolutism to its highest pitch. It was
through foreign service that the Swiss of higher rank, the sons of the
ruling families, came into touch with the life of foreign Courts, where
they learnt court ways, and that money and affluence came into the
influential circles in the various districts, bringing with them an arrogant
and exclusive tone. In this sense foreign service also had a bearing upon
the class conflicts. The development of oligarchical rule, which grew and
throve in a soil thus prepared for it, was carried out in concentric circles.
First came the suppression of the rights of dependencies — ^^of the subject
territories and common prefectures ( Vogteien)-r-Sindi the concentration of
all rights and powers in the hands of the towns or governing cantons;
next, within that town or canton, followed the ruUng out from among
the biu-ghers of outsiders {Hintersassen) or resident aliens {Beisassen) ;
and their exclusion from any share in the government. Finally, indi-
vidual families from among the burghers set themselves over the rest;
and thus begins the supremacy of certain families *or the patriciate. In
Bern the patriciate had been handed down from early times in the shape
of government by the nobility; but in the other towns and cantons it
only grew up in the last period of old Switzerland ; in any case, it had
reached its full development at the beginning of the eighteenth century,
so that this century stands out above its predecessor as the period of
the all-prevalent patriciate. In Freiburg only a legalised patriciate
existed, inasmuch as the group of families in power was defined by
a formal ordinance, whereas in other places it had arisen simply by
usurpation on the one side and voluntary submission on the other.
ITie entire development of oligarchical rule, from the suppression of the
rights of dependencies down to the establishment of the patriciate, was
effected, where the requisite preliminary conditions were in existence, in
three concentric circles, although these circles partly intersect in this way:
that a further concentration of authority begins before the last has been
quite completed. Thus, and to this extent, the dependencies, the outsiders
or resident aliens in the towns, and the citizens themselves, were in
succession suppressed, and it was the revolt of one or other of these
bodies or groups which constituted the class wars. There was an
1653-1798] Class rcvolts and e&i^icts. — The Aufklarung. 625
impressive prelude to these struggles in the Swiss Peasants' War of 1653,
when the districts round the towns of Luzern, Basel, Solothurn, and Bern
rose in concert; but the defeat of the peasants was so complete that no
further attempt was made until in the next century movements took
place, independent but universal, now here and now there, incessant and
constantly renewed. First of all in 1713, a year after the Second
Vilmergen War and caused by it, came the rising of the burghers of the
town of Zurich against the patriciate; then, from 1717 to 1729, the
revolt at Wilchingen in the canton of Schaffhausen ; 1719-32, the rising
in Werdenberg, a dependency of Glarus ; 1723, the attempt on the part
of Davel to snatch Vaud from Bern; 1728-35, the struggle between
the families of Schumacher and Zurlauben in Zug; 1732-5, that
between the Wetters and Zellwegers in Ausserrhoden ; 1749, Henzi's
plot in Bern; 1755, the Val Levenlina rising against Uri; 17S7-70,
the affair of the Schumachers and Meiers in Luzern; 1762-76, the
Suter afi^ir at Innerrhoden; 1764-*8, that of the Pfeils against the
Redings in Schwyz; 1766, that of Einsiedeln against Schwyz; 1781,
that of €rreyerz against Freiburg, and many othei-s. Sometimes these
were struggles of depiendencies or subject territories against the town or
ruling canton, sometimes of the burghers against the patriciate, or' of
one family against another for supremacy-^-" cock-fights " as these last
were called — struggles of the Montagues and Capulets, the most sfelfish
and therefore the most reprehensible of all social struggles. In Geneva,
these party conflicts lasted for almost the whole of the eighteenth
century. As these class wars in Switzerland were in general the
precursors of the world-famed class war in France, so it was Geneva in
•particular from which the French, before they had yet emerged out of the
sphere of theories, derived their examples of popular risings, of delibera-
tive assemblies and imperious action on the part of private societies,
and filially even a supply of agents versed in the art of insurrection.
Meanwhile the intellectual movement called the Aitfkldrung hiad
communicated itself to Switzerland also — with the aid of literary and
scientific men such as Bodmer and Breitinger,' Gesner, Lavater, Johannes
von Miiller, Haller, and of societies like the Helvetic Society, founded in
1760, which entered upon a fresh lease of life and activity in the so-called
" Regeneration," when the reaction of the Restoration had followed on
the S!e(volution.
After the outbreak of the French Revolution, ithe class striiggle
bega;n afresh in Switzei-land, now stimulated by the example of France,
in the agitation, rigofously repressed, at Stafa, 1794—5; the object,
however, was ho longer to regain ancient popular rights, but to introdtibe
the new "equality" and " fraternity" of the French. The struggle was
again put doVen, until the great Revolution spread into Switzerland and
brought about, in 1798, the complete overthrow of the Swiss Constitution
by the establishment of the Helvetic Republic.
0. M. H. VI. OH. xvn. 40
626
CHAPTER XVIII.
JOSEPH II.
Joseph II, the eldest son of Maria Theresa, since the death of
Francis I in 1765 Emperor and co-regent with his mother in the Habs-
burg dominions, took up the reins of government , in a spirit wholly
deserving of praise. He was endowed by nature with an unrivalled zeal
for hard work, and with great openness of mind : he claimed in addition
to belong wholly to his own age, and held an exalted view of the
responsibilities of his office. He had learnt history and the law of
nations from Bartenstein, natural law and the economic sciences from
Martini, tactics and strategy from Daun, Laudon, and Lacy.:
Desirous of possessing a thorough knowledge of his dominion's and
of the principal countries of Europe, .he, undertook many journeys,
primarily in quest of information. No pride of State attended him ; he
would put up at inns, and rarely showed himself at entertainments or
spectacles, devoting the whole of his time to matters of real importance.
In every town through which he passed, it was his care to enquire
minutely into all that concerned the army, trade, industry, and charity,
and in his thirst for comprehensive knowledge he plied with eager
questipns anyone who could furnish him with useful information. Thus
he visited Hungary twice, in 1764 and 1768 ; the Banat of Temesvdr in
1766 ; Rome and Italy twice, in 1769 and 1783 ; Bohemia and Moravia
in 1772 ; Galicia in 1773 ; France twice, in 1777 and 1781 ; the Austrian
Netherlands and the Republic of the United Provinces in 1781.
The dominions which were to be the scene of the young Emperor's
activity were of the most heterogeneous character, endlessly subdivided
and occupied by peoples separated from each other by every law of their
being — :by birth, language, tradition, and interests. These 250,000
square miles of land were in fact composed of territories rather con-
tiguous than united, whose inhabitants displayed an infinitive diversity,
ajid belonged to races not only different, but in many instances hostile:
there were Germans, Magyars, Italians, Roumanians, Slavs, vying with
each other in their subdivisions; and it might have been said with
truth that, save for the Catholic religion professed by all but a small
1765-73] Joint regency of Maria Theresa and Joseph II. 627
minority among them, they had nothing in common except the person
of the Emperor and the service due to him. The task to which
Joseph II was to devote all his energies would clearly be hard, and
full of difficulties. It was inevitable that struggles should ensue, when
the administration was shared by an eager and ambitious Prince, athirst
for progress, and an autocratic Empress, who was jealous of her own
power, no less ambitious but infinitely more prudent than her son,
essentially conservative and distrustful of innovation. The tempera-
ments of the two rulers were, in a word, mutually antipathetic, and with
regard to certain definite aims they disagreed from the first.
Scarcely was Joseph installed when he declared war upon all expenses
which were useless, or judged by him to be such, and sought to compass
the conversion of the national debt. Besides this, he undertook a
minute inspection of his frontiers and his troops, returning with the
conviction that the military equipment of the Empire was inadequate
and demanded considerable reinforcement, though this would entail
great pecuniary sacrifices. The Chancellor, Kaunitz, who sided with the
Empress, resisted the projected reforms, submitting that every increase in
the public burdens would make itself felt by a perceptible decline in
general prosperity. Moreover, unless the state coffers were to be com-
pletely exhausted, it would be impossible to keep continually under
arms a body of troops sufficient to guarantee the safety of all the
frontiers at once. They must content themselves with possessing a good
standing army, and such facilities for recruiting as would ensure the
speedy enlistment of the necessary additions. Any other course of
action would involve the risk of paralysing industry and trade ; more-
over, such a widespread distribution of military forces would rouse
uneasiness in the foreign Powers, and would be likely to result in
diplomatic complications.
Nor were these the only points at issue between the co-regents.
Joseph II, whose heart was in the system of centralisation, pronounced
the State Conference to be ill-organised and the surveillance exercised
by the superior authority a mere pretence; and he criticised in no
measured terms the working of the office of Chancellor, the joint creation
of the Empress and Kaunitz. Although in the end he was to succeed
in bringing about certain reforms in these directions, he had first to
encounter a stubborn and fierce resistance.
When the young Emperor visited Hungary and Bohemia, he was
profoundly impressed by the wretched plight of the peasantry. He
rightly attributed their deplorable condition to the unfair pressure of
the seigniorial charges and to the ignorance of the people, and he wished
to mitigate their serfdom, to lighten the feudal burdens imposed upon
them, and to build schools. Maria Theresa eventually yielded to his
representations, and issued, in 1773, a decree regarding feudal servitudes.
CH. XVIII. 40 — 2
628 Education and religion. — Poland. [1764-77
But the result of this proceeding was unfortunate: the peasants,
iiiiagining that their rulers wished to free them from all dues, and that
the nobles were opposed to this measure and had gained to' their side
the ministers of State, rose in revolt. Bands of insurgents spread terror
in the rural districts ; the insurrection Spread to Moravia, to Austrian
Silesia, Styria, and Hungarj', and was only quelled at last by a summary
application of martial law. Kaunitz advocated the withdrawal of all
concessions hitherto made, and the refusal of all favours to rebels ; but
the influence of Joseph carried the day, and the more crying abuses
were suppressed. .
The Emperor, again, was in favour of a complete remodelling of
public education in a more secular spii-it. " The State is no cloister,"
he said, " and we have, in good truth, no monks for our neighbours."
It is not difficult to imagine how his mother's strict piety felt itself
outraged by such sentiments. Later, the breach between the-two was
widened still further upon the question of religion, when, after the
.persecutions carried on against dissenters in Moravia,, Joseph wrote to
his mother, during, the month of June, 1777: "I am more and more
convinced of the soundness of my principles by these, open avowals of
.irreligion in Moravia: once ;grant freedom of belief, and there will be
but, one religion — that of directing all the citizens equally towards the
good of the State. On any other plan it will be impossible to save
men's sbvds, and many bodies will be sacrificed which we need and might
have used. Shall the power of man aspire to pass judgment on the
mercy of God, to save men in their own despite, to make a law to rule
over conscience ? You who are temporal lords, if only the State be
duly served, if the laws of nature and society meet with reverence and
the Supreme Being fail not of honour — why should you seek * wider
sphere of influence ? Hearts may not be enlightened, save by the Holy
Spirit, whose workings your laws can only disannul. Such, as your
Majesty is well aware, is my creed : and the strength of my convictions
will hold me to it as long as I live." Maria Theresa replied : " Without
a supreme religion, tolerance and indifference are the very means whereby
comes ruin and total overthrow. We ourselves should fare the worst."
The contest grew so bitter that Joseph proposed to his mother that he
'should abdicate, and peace was only restoried with the utmost difficulty.
In the sphere of external politics, too,, harmony was far to seek.
Poland had, for. a long time past, maintained its position, not by its
own strength, but simply through the feuds and jealousies of the lieigh-
bourihg States. After the death of Augustus III, the kingdom passed
.(September 7, 1764) to Stanislaus Poniatowski, under the guardianship
of the Russian ambassador Repnih. The policy of Russia was to resist
all reforms which might tend to strengthen Poland, and to maintain the
liberum vetp, together with all the drkwbacks of the ancient Constitvltion.
I'res-vi] Russian aggressions against Turkey. — Kaumtz. 629
Again, Russia interfered on behalf of the non-Catholics, and, notwith-
standing the fierce opposition of the nobles and clergy, she forced upon
the country liberty of worship, and the admission of dissenters to all
the public offices and the electoral assemblies. This conduct provoked
a revolt, which was cruelly suppressed by the Russians. In 1768 their
troops pursued some Polish insurgents into Turkish territory, and the
Porte, in consequence, declared war on the Tsarina : and from this time
onward the fortunes of Poland became intimately connected with the
Turco-Russian question.
At this juncture, Kaunitz devised a plan which he thought very
ingenious. Austria was to take the initiative in a coalition with Prussia
and Turkey : this triple alliance would quickly get the better of Russia,
and check the threatening growth of that Power. At the same time,
Silesia would be won back, Frederick being allowed to take Courlandand
the grand duchy of Posen. Joseph II had little difficulty in exposing
the chimerical nature of this arrangement. It savoured of childish folly
to imagine that Frederick would give up Silesia in exchange for terri-
tories which were certainly larger, but at the same time far less necessary
for the consolidation of his dominions : nor was it more likely that he
would abandon at such a price the chief supporter of his pohcy. Baffled,
but not disheartened, Kaunitz, who had already drawn the attention of
Frederick to the dangers threatening the equilibrium of eastern Europe
from the pretensions of Russia, tried to convince his sovereigns that war
was to be preferred to the complete success of the Tsarina's troops in
Turkey. If they could come to an agreement with Prussia, the entry of
an Austro-Prussian army into Poland would force Catharine to make
peace, without striking a blow. But Maria Theresa was afraid of war,
and her son doubted the readiness of the Austrian army to take the
field. His reply to his Chancellor accordingly ran : " Leave Russia and
Turkey to come to blows ; but let us reinforce our military strength,
and, when the two rivals have weakened one another, the Porte will pay
us highly for our help. Then, we will hold the Russians in check, if
they encroach towards the Danube, and we will leave Frederick a free
hand in Poland." After prolonged hesitation, Maria Theresa acquiesced
in this opinion, and the negotiations resulted in the Convention of July,
1771, described below.
Frederick, for his part, could not acquiesce in the outrageous stipu-
lations to which Russia demanded that the Turks should accede. The
downfall of Turkey could involve no possible advantage to Prussia, and
might even draw her, in the end, into war against Austria on behalf of
Russia. Thus it was that he conceived the idea of partitioning Poland,
by way of a solution of all these difficulties; for by this means the
rapaciousness of all the claimants would be satisfied, with the additional
advantage that the balance of power would be restored. Joseph II had
already anticipated this step during the year 1768, when he had caused
630 First Polish Partition Treaty. [1V68-72
his troops to occupy the Polish district of Zips, taking his stand upon the
doubtful mortgage of it to the Polish Crown in 1412. Maria Theresa
disapproved of this course of action, and held very different views.
Austria, in her opinion, should offer her mediation to win more favour-
able terms for Turkey; and the Empress fondly hoped to win Little
Wallachia in return for these good offices. In this way the projected
partition of Poland was resisted, and a blow was dealt at the influence!
of Prussia in Constantinople, But the Emperor and his Chancellor
were opposed to such a plan, and the Tsarina, on her partj refusing
to give it countenance, sighed with Frederick II the secret Treaty of
St Petersburg (February 17, 1772). It was thenceforth impossible to
prevent either Russia from establishing her supremacy on the Black Sea,
or the two allied Powers from seizing whatever part of Poland they
coveted ; and Austria had no choice but to share in the dismemberment
proposed by Prussia. Maria Theresa expostulated with sighs — "She is
always in tears," said Frederick ; "yet she is always ready to take her
share." She sent Kaunitz a note breathing trepidation and anguish :
" When all my dominions were threatened and I knew not where I might
bring forth my son in safety, I trusted in my right and in the heljp of
God. But in this matter, where among other voices the voice of manifest
right cries out against us to Heaven, I must acknowledge that never in
my life have I suffered pangs like these, that I feel shame to show my
face. Let the Prince bethink him what example we set to the world,
when we prostitute our honom: and our good name for a wretched
fragment of Poland or Moldavia or Wallachia. I know well that I am
weak and friendless, and for this reason I suffer events to take their
course ; but my spirit is bitterly vexed."
The Treaty of August 5, 1772, gave to Prussia the whole basin of
the lower Vistula with the exception of Danzig^ about 20,000 square
miles with 600,000 inhabitants, thus establishing continuity between
the eastern provinces and the centre of the monarchy. Russia received
White Russia with 1,600,000 inhabitants; Austria had for her share
. the Comitat of Zips, an important part of Red Il^ssia, certain portions
of Podolia and Volhynia, the southern part of Little Poland, more than
two millions of subjects, and the northern slope of the Carpathians.
From the point of view of general politics, the partition of Poland
linked the three Courts of the north in a complicity which for a long
time involved a joint responsibility; for the rest, it substituted for the
ancient right of nations the proclamation of brute force as supreme, of
might as right.
Austria had for many a year cast longing glances in the direction of
Bavaria. The marriage of Archduke Joseph with Princess Maria Josepha,
sister of the childless Elector Maximilian tfoseph, had been concluded
mainly in order that the inheritance of the Elector might pass to the
1767-78] Austrian designs on the Bavarian inheritance. 631
House of Habsburg ; but the Empress died, without issue, in 1767, and
the cherished dream came to nothing. But hope was not yet abandoned.
The inheritance of the Elector Maximilian Joseph of Bavaria had on
his death (December 30, 1777) lapsed to the Elector Palatine (Charles
Theodore of Sulzbach). Skilful negotiations, carried on under the seal
of absolute secrecy, resulted, on January 15, 1778, in an agreement
whereby the Elector, in exchange for advantageous settlements secured
by Austria to his natural children, recognised the Austrian claim to
Bavaria, thus sacrificing the interest of his heir presumptive, Duke
Charles II of Zweibriicken-Birkenfeld, who was descended in collateral
line from the Rudolfine branch of the House of Wittelsbach. The
House of Austria thus acquired, without striking a blow, a German
land, part of which carried the Habsburg nionarthy into the heart of
the Empire and brought its dominions in Germany near to its Italian
possessions.
The agreement once signed, Kaunitz believed that the game was won.
On the one hand, he reckoned on the French alliance; bn the other, the
attention of Russia was absorbed by the events in the Crimea, as was
that of England by the insurrection of her colonies, and the King of
Prussia, now grown old, could have no other preoccupation beyond keeping
intact the conquests of his youth. The Chancellor was soon to see how
grievously he had deceived himself. Vainly did Joseph II try to secure
the support of Louis XVI by offering him a share of the Austrian
Netherlands: seductive as the offer was, it could not outweigh thfe
disadvantages which, from the point of view of France, must inevitably
attend the extension of the Austrian power into the heart of Germany,
and its acquisition of absolute control over the Empire and the highway^
into Italy.
Frederick had foreseen this attitude on the part of France ; at the
same time, he had persuaded the Tsarina that the least change in the
Germanic Constitution would be prejudicial to the interests of Russia.
Having no fears in this quarter, he occupied himself in' winning over to
his views the Duke of Zweibriicken-Birkenfeld. Austria had brought
about the relinquishment of all claims on the part of the Elector
Palatine; but the agreement of January 15, 1778, was not completely
valid without the assent of the heir presumptive aforesaid. But,
far from identifying himself with the intrigues of Austria, the young
Prince, obeying the instigation of Frederick, disputed at the Diet the
validity of the transfer. The King of Prpssja was not slow to intervene.
His attitude at first was that of peacemaker, and he had much to
say in favour of a new arrangement : the Palatine House should give
up to Austria two districts of Bavaria, on the Danube and on the
Inn; Austria for her part should cede to the Elector the duchy of
Limburg, with the small portion of Gelders which she tlien held, com-
prising the town of Ruremonde and certain villages. The Elector of
632 Jf^ar of the Bavarian Succession. [i778
Saxony should have Mindelheim and Wiesensteig. Maria Theresa
was to renounce the suzerain rights of Bohemia over the fiefs of the
Upper Palatinate, Saxony, and the margravates of Franconia. These
oflFers not being accepted^ the negotiations were broken off,/ and war
became a Certain prospect.
The Cabinet of Vienna instantly put in a claim at Versailles for the
military assistance stipulated in the Treaty of 1756. But the French
Ministry refused the demand, on the ground that the possessions
guaranteed to Maria Theresa by the Treaty cited were not now the
ground of dispute. The present difference related to territories which
had not been in question at the time when the alliance was concluded::
the matter now at issue w£is thus no longer the protection of the
Austrian dominions, but their extension, and -the casus Jbederis could
not therefore be said to arise. Besides these reasons, borrowed from the
Treaty, France had others as to which she kept silence: was it not to be
feared that the enlargement of Austria towards the upper Danube
might tempt her to extend her sway towards the Rhine? Moreover,
was it wise for France to involve herself in the difficulties of a conti-
nental war, when a maritime war was imminent and would tax her
resources to the utmost ? Would there not be a risk of reviving the
Apglo-Prussian alliance ? France accordingly remained neutral.
In July, 1778, Frederick II at the head of more than 100,000 men,
entered Bohemia by the county of Glatz, occupied Nachod and advanced
as: far as the Elbe. Joseph II was awaiting him in a formidable position
on the opposite bank, and for several months the two armies kept a watch-
ful eye on one another, but made no important movement. It seemed as
if the old King shrank from tempting Fortune again, while the young
Emperor was afraid to expose to the hazard of a battle the soldierly
reputation which was his cherished ambition. Whatever the explanation
may be, he was content to show himself as a very calni and vigilant
commander. This extraordinary campaign, in which some of the fore-
most generals of the age — Frederick II and Prince* Henry, Lacy and
Liaudon^were brought together, came to an end in October, 1778,
without a siege or engagement of any moment.
The war had filled the Empress with intense fear. Without her
son's knowledge, she entered upon negotiations with Frederick II, and,
when these proved fruitless, sought the mediation of France and Russia.
France, absorbed in restoring the efficiency of her navy, and involved
in a costly war with England, was iall for peace ; Russia, still preserving
an unpleasant remembrance of the behaviour of Austria towards her
during her disputes with the Porte, atod recalling with gratitude, on the
other hand, the intervention of Prussia in the same matter, was prepared
to listen to the demands of Maria Theresa, but with the reservation that
Frederick's interests must be consulted.
In a congress hereupon opened at Teichen, there were vehement
1769-79] Treaty of Teschen. — Austria and Busda. 633
discussions and much heated advocacy of the opposing claims, and more
than once it seemed that the negotiations were in jeopardy. The news of
the decisive peace concluded at Constantinople between the Siiltan and
the Tsarina gave a timely support to the efforts of diplomacy. Fearing
that Russia, relieved from anxiety witii regard to Turkey, might give
military aid to the Prussians, Austria adopted a more conciliatory
attitude, and the Conference came to an end on May 13, 1779.
The Treaty of Teschen bestowed upon Austria that part of the terri-
tory of Berghausen which lies between the Danilbe, the Inn, and the
Salza — an acquisition offering the advantage of establishing direct com-
munication between the archduchy of Austria and Tyrol. In exchange
for this extension of their dominions, the Emperor and his mother gave
up their claim to the inheritance of -Bavaria^- which remained in the
hands of the Elector Palatine, with a reversion in favour of the Duke
of Zweibriicken. They also bound themselves to further the eventual
reunion of the margravates of Baireuth and Ansbach'with the Prussian
Crown. The consequences of this Treaty were of no small importanccj
The readjustment of the plan of alliance, the work on which Kaunitz
prided himself so highly, did not, as a matter of fact; produce any of the
important results for which its author had fondly hoped ; the alliance
with France brought no appreciable advantage to Austria. On the
other hand, the Peace of Teschen revealed the growing influence of
Russia. Joseph II was profoundly impressed ; he noted ihe additional
strength given to Prussia by the Russian support, and (finding himself,
once again, at variance with his mother) he was disposed to shift the
basis of the Austrian policy, moving it eastwards towards Russia rather
than in the direction of France; and to renounce the traditional hostility
between Vienna and St Petersburg. In fine, Russia had now for the
first time made her voice heard in German affairs; Prussia had increased
in strength; and Austria was doomed to fall into the second rank.
If the pretensions of Russia in the direction of the Vistula were
alarming to Austria, that Power viewed with still more suspicion the steps
taken by the Tsarina towards the provinces of the Danube, the natural
outlet of the Austrian dominions into the Black Sea. In order to,
strengthen himself beforehand against the Muscovite eilcroachments,
Joseph II negotiated a reconciliation with Prussia, in his celebrated
interview with Frederick II at Neisse, in August, 1769. To this date
we may trace back the first symptom of cookess in the Franco Austrian
alliance, and the first steps taken by Prussia to free herself from Russian
influence. The two sovereigns met again at Neustadt, in September
1770, when Turkey, disheartened by the calamity of Tchesm^, implored'
their joint mediation. It has already been indicated how closely this
question was entangled with that of Poland ; and these transactions
which are treated in another volume, need not be discussed here. '
634 Treaty of Kutchuk-Kainarilji. [1771-80
Kaunitz now negotiated an alliance with the Porte, with intent to
protect the interests of the monarchy in the east.. By the Convention
of July 7, 1771, Austria bound herself to make common cause with
Turkey, "to deliver her out of the hands of Russia by the means either
of negotiations or of arms, and to cause to be restored all the fortresses,
provinces and territories, which, being in the possession of the Sublime
Porte, have been unlawfully seized bj Russia^" As (the price of this
alliance Turkey promised to pay a subsidy of 11,250,000 florins, to
grant to Austrian subjects the most-favoured-nation terms as to trade
and to give up the part of Wallachia between Transylvania, the Banat
of TemesvAr, the Danube, and the Aluta. But when (as has beeb seen)
Austria came to terms with Russia about the partition of Poland, it
became clear that the cause of Turkey could no longer be upheld other-
wise than by diplomacy, the alternative of war being naturally excluded.
Thugut showed his skill in bringing the Porte to acknowledge this; and
he further offered to cancel the Treaty in question. The Sultan showed
a conciliatory temper, and offered to abide by the concessions he had
granted, if Austria succeeded in obtaining by her mediation a peace
which would secure to hifii the Danubian Provinces and Crimean Tartary,
In the conferences held at Focktchany in' Aprily 1772, the questions
of secondary importance were settled with no great difficulty ; but, since
no agreement could be reached on the subject of the iiidependence of
the Tartars, the negotiations were broken off; and the efforts made to
come to terms at Bucharest, in the following year, proved fruitless.
The point at issue on this occasion was the right of navigation in the
Black Sea, demanded by Russia, together with the cession of Kerch
and of Yenikale. There was accordingly a fresh outbreak of war : the
Russian army, defeated successively in the neighbourhood of Silistria
and of Varna, had the greatest difficulty in recrossdng the Danube. But
in 1774 Rumyantseff succeeded in routing the Turkish army at Shumla,
and the Porte, in face of this pressing danger, concluded, on July 21,
1774, the Treaty of Kutchuk-Kainardji. This was the first great
trea,ty concluded between Russia and the Porte, " the foundation-stone
of the lengthy I transaction, varied by intervals of bloodshed, whith was
destined,. aff;er a century of endeavour, to bring the soldiers of the Tsar
to the gates of Constantinople." It made Russia the , protectress of the
Mussulmans of the Crimea in the matter of political independence,; and
of the Christians of the Ottoman empire in that of religious liberty.
Joseph II claimed, in return for his good offices, that the Bukowina
should be given up to him : it was relinqjaished by the Turks on May 7,
1776. Austria thus acquired a strategic position of the first order,
enabling her, at her choice, to support the Russians in a joint campaign,
or to intimidate them, if the two Powers should happen to disagree.
By the death pf JV^aria Theresa, on Nove^iber 29, 1780, Joseph II
1780-1] Joseph as sole ruler. His " enlightened de^otism." 635
became sole monarch of the Habsburg dominions. He now hoped to be
able to carry out sweeping reforms in every direction. He was not,
however, the originator of these reforms ; their spirit was that of the
eighteenth century, and similar endeavours are observable in almost
every part of Europe. Reason must rule the world, the omnipotence
of the State must be servant to reason. The State, acting in its own
interest, must be the agent of reform. The programme of this "en-
lightened despotism" included the general distribution and equitable
apportionment of taxation, uniformity of legislation, subordination of
the Church to the State, abolition of annates and tithes, establishment
of intellectual liberty, of tolerance in religion, of impartial justice for
every man. All these boons must be the gift of a sovereign whose
authority was beyond question, and who devoted himself wholly to his
people's welfare. It was to the sovereigns only that the reformers looked
for the realisation of their schemes.
All the statesmen of Austria were more or less imbued with these
ideas, and not even Maria Theresa herself had entirely escaped their
influence. Jealous as she was of her authority, and deeply devoted to
the happiness of her subjects, she had been inspired by Kaunitz, van
Swieten, Martini, Sonnenfels, and others, to encourage intellectual culture,
to amend the penal laws, and to restrict the application of torture. At
the same time she did not cease to regard the nobility and clergy as the
mainstay of her power, while her son was not likely to be hampered by
these conservative predilections. In his turn, he was led astray by a
tendency to excessive theorising, and a failure to take sufficient account
of tradition, time, and surroundings ; and he was apt to fall into yet
another mistake — that of believing the men whom he entrusted with
the execution of his orders possessed of his own virtues, his own zeal
and devotion to the public welfare. Thus he was destined to a cruel
disillusionment, which embittered the last years of his life.
Joseph n always protested that he was not the enemy of the Church,
and that it was his wish to remain a believing Christian. But he, would
not suffer the papal authority to intervene in his dominions ; in his eyes;
the nuncio was only the ambassador of a temporal sovereign. Without
decisively advocating a transformation of the hierarchy, he wished to see
the episcopal power more independent of Rome; his views on this question
being closely allied to those of the Archbishops of Cologne, Trier, Mainz
and Salzbiu'g. He was presently to adopt more radical opinions ; and he
may even have thought of creating a national Church — of proceedingj
that is, so far as schism.
Judging it inadmissible that citizens should be branded with in-
feriority by reason of their religious principles, the Emperor issued^
in 1781, the Patent of Tolerance. In this, while proclaiming his firm
resolve to protect and uphold with unvarying consistency the religion of
the Catholic Church, he declared himself at the same time on the side of
636 Patent of Tolerance. — The Beti^ous Orders. [i78i-90
that icivil tolerancej which, without enquiring into a man's belief, in each
case considers only his worth as a citizen. In consequence, while the
Catholic religion alone was to continue to enjoy the prerogative of public
worship, in all the districts containing a fixed number of persons sufficient
to defray the expenses of the Protestant or Greek form of worship, these
sects were to be free to use their own service. Dissenters might build
places of worship, on condition that these edifices should bear no out-
waird resemblance to churches, and should have neither bells nor steeples;
they should be capable of becoming citizens, and.be admissible to
trades and corporations, and to academic degrees; and the Emperor
reserved to himself the right of admitting them, by special dispensation,
to public offices. The freedom thus granted was, it is true, by no means
untrammelled; and the condition of the Jews, in particular, was in no
respect bettered. Nevertheless, this decree bore the stamp of a generous
and lofty spirit; heresy was no longer an infringement of the law;
honourable careers were opened to dissenters; and, if it be borne in mind
that the Patent was the work of a Prince whose life had been spent
in the austerely orthodox atmosphere of the Court of Austria, it must
be pronounced a document of a singularly broad-minded type. Pope
Pius VI was moved by this Patent to take a step unprecedented in, the
history of Christianity. In lYSS he repaired to Vienna, where he stayed
for a considerable time. Received with all due honour, he frequently
conversed with the Emperor on ecclesiastical questions, but without
Succeeding ih his wishes ; and the Patent remained in full force.
Disliking the cosmopolitan character of the religious Orders, Joseph II
prescribed that they should no longer be subordinate to foreign Generals,
and thait they should be for the future entirely dependent on the Ordinary.
Shortly afterwards, he declared his intention of completing the work of
reform undertaken and left unfinished by the Council of Trent ; and he
suppressed all the contemplative Ordiers, which he condemned as useless,
allowing only the Congregations occupied with the care of the sick and
with teaching to remain. At the end of his reign, 700 out of 2000
convents had disappeared, and the number of monks had been diminished
by 30,000. In the substitution Of the episcopal authority just mentioned
it is possible to trace the influence of I^ebronius. In spite of the
refutations directed against them, the doctrines defended in the works
of "Febronius" (Hontheim) — ^of which an account is given in a later
volume — had long exercised a powerful influence in the ecclesiastical
world erf Germany, and many Austrian statesmen were deeply imbued
with their teaching.
In opposition to this tradition it has recently been urged that the son
of Maria Theresa cannot be regardied as a disciple of the theologian of
Trier. The Emperor, according to this view, wished to subordinate the
Church to the State, while Febronius urged the national Churches to
emancipate themselves, not only from the Pope, but also &om the
1753-90] "Fehronian 'influence -Seminaries of secular clergy. Q2>^
temporal power. The truth is that Hontheim made his appeal to all
Princes, to help him in protecting the episcopate against the encroach-
ments of the Roman See. It seems certain that Joseph II did wish to
see the Church subordinated to the State ; but there are none the less
unmistakable indications of the influence of Febronius in certain of the
imperial reforms. We can still find its mark in the decrees bearing on
dispensations in questions of marriage, and in the rule that thfe pontifical
Bulls must be submitted to the placet, as well as in the prohibition of
written sermons, and of exegetical discussion in the seminaries of the two
Bulls In Coena Domini and Umgenitusy which define the prerogatives ^of
the sovereign pontifi;
The Emperor's wish to restore the primitive simplicity of worship
and to restrain the prevailing extravagance of display led him to in-
terfere in the inner details of parochial life and church service, thus
encroaching upon a domain not his own. He took no less interest in
the education of the secular clergy. The work of instruction being
much neglected in the diocesan seminaries, the Emperor desired, that
the secular branches of knowledge should be added to the courses of
theological and canonical learning: and, judging that these studies would
bear more fruit in centralised institutions than in independent schools,
he issued a decree suppressing all the diocesan seminaries^ These, he
replaced by five general seminaries, at Vienna, Pest, Freiburg, Louvain,
and Pavia, together with several affiliated seminaries, playing the part
of subsidiary institutions, at Gratz, Olmiitz,: Innsbruck, Prague, and
Luxemburg. , His ostensible aim was to provide the young priests with
a solid, comprehensive, and liberal education, in conformity with all the
latest results of science, and in touch w;ith all the learning of the age.
Care was taken to admit as masters in these establishments none but the
" enlightened " ; but, in choosing this staff, the Government was not
invariably fortunate from the point of view of orthodoxy. The general
seminaries were in fact placed under the authority of the State, and the
education of the young clergy , was entirely removed from the hftnds of
the episcopate. Serious (difficulties were thus to be expected.
The judicial system was certain to engage the Emperor's passion for
reform. Already in 1753, Maria Theresa had established, a cpmmittee
called the Compilations Commission, whose work it, was to draw up a
new and very definite code, perfectly uniform in character, The young
Emperor wished to complete his mother's worik by siinplifying the
organisation of tribunals, establishing a uniform procedure, and equipping
the Courts of justice with a body of men worthy of their task. In his
view, judicial and political power ought to be kept entirely separate ;
he suppressed the greater number of the subordinate jurisdictions, as
impotent and withal costly, and created a complete hierarchy of linked
tribunals, descending from the High Court of Vienna to the judges in
the rural districts, with a first instance, an appeal and a final revision,
638 Judicial and penal systems-Condition of peasantry. \yie&-QC)
as in our own day. At the same time, the heavy fees payable by
newly appointed magistrates and for written judgments were abolished,
and the cost of obtaining justice was considerably lessened. To this
substantial improvement of the judicial organisation Joseph II added
an admirable reform of the penal laws. The principle of terror
and vengeance, which lay at the foundation of the old legislation, was
abandoned, and the idea of a social safeguard adopted in its stead.
Inquisitional procedure and torture, already partially abolished by Maria
•Theresa, now disappeared entirely ; the infliction of the death-penalty,
hitherto indiscriminate, was restrained within reasonable limits, and all
penalties were considerably lightened. The list of crimes no longer
included magic, apostasy, and intermamage between Christians and
infidels. The Emperor had also ordered a revision of the civil laws, but
he had not time to complete his work ; he could only publish certain
preparatory edicts, whereby marriage became a civil contract and the
law of inheritance underwent' some equitable modifications.
The condition of the peasants left much to be desired in more than
one province, more especially the case in Moravia and Bohemia. In a
report on the latter addressed to the Council of State in 1769, we read :
"One cannot remark without amazement, without real terror and pro-
found emotion, the state of utter misery in which the peasants languish
under the crushing burdens imposed on them by their feudal lords."
Joseph II visited the country, as we have seen, and returned in dismay.
The peasants were almost entirely dependent upon the lord of the manor;
they were not owners of the land, but simply held it in usufruct ; they
could not leave their lord's estate without his permission, or marry, or
give to their children any profession but that of labourers; they were
bound by a thousand forms of servitude, called robot. Maria Theresa
had already commanded certain reforms ; she had, in pstrticular, defined
the limits of statute labour and undertaken to transform feudal rights
into dues payable in money. Joseph II carried on this work, abolishing
serfdom in the Slav provinces, and securing to the peasants the right
of owning laiid, of marrying according to their choice, and of changing
their domicile at their own pleasure. He also increased considerably the
pbwers of the offices of the "circles" {Kreisdmter), so as almost to
paralyse those of the feudal proprietors.
The young Emperor had been especially struck by the want of
regularity and uniformity in the laws which governed his dominions,
and it was his wish to divide the Empire into districts identical in
administration. There were thirteen governments, divided into "circles,"
which in their turn were subdivided into urban and rUi?al communities.
The true basis of the organisation was the "circle," which was the unit
in all that concerned the army, education, and finance. At the same
time, the provincial Estates underwent a diminution of their power.
They had already, under Maria Theresa, ceased to meet oftener than
1761--90] Finandal views of Joseph and Kaunitz. 639
once in ten years ; henceforth, they would not be assembled at allj unless
by express summons of the Prince ; their permanent representatives were
in future to be assembled only for the voting of necessary subsidies;
nor were they permitted even then to give any opinion as to the object
of the requisition, but might only discuss ways and means. A similar
system was to be adopted with regard to, the towns, whose privileges
were to be withdrawn or evaded, one by one ; and steps were to be taken
to substitute for the local governing bodies delegacies from the State.
;I)Uring the earlier half of the eighteenth century, the Austrian
Government was constantly involved in financial difficulties.. The reason
of this was not, however, as in France, the extravagaiice of the Court,
the erection of ostentatious monuments, the . lavish expenditure of the
sovereigns on their fa vouritesr-- the all but hopeless embarrassment of
the administrators of the exchequer was due to the demands made upon
them by the army. To, defend so vast a territory; and keep the peace
among so many different peoples was a task necessitating an army of
considerable strength, involving a proportionate cost to the country.
This state of affairs had already caused grave anxiety to Maria Theresa,
jyho, at the instigation, of her husband, had caused the most rigorous
economy to be observed in the management of the Court; then, with the
aid of Chotek, a C.ech nobleman who, in 1761, succeeded Haugwitz as
Chancellor of Bohemia and Austria, she had introduced the principle of
the twofold tax, on land and personalty, which affected all classes of the
population. At the same time, she caused the harbour of Trieste to be
reconstructed^ and the roads and canals improved; scrupulous- payment
, of the state interest, raised the credit of the country, and the financial
situation became more favourable. Joseph, who shared the views of the
" physiocrats/ and dreamed of bringing the organisation of taxation
intp conformity with, them, yet shrank from a radical reform, and
established a provisional tax on land, calculated from the average
revenue of ten years. At the same time, he set on foot the colossal
enterprise of revising the register of landed property throughout the
monarchy, and thus brought about a rearrangement of the scale of taxes,
whereby, if an estate yielded an income of a hundred florins, seventy of
these remained in the possession of the tenant, seventeen at most be-
longed to the feudal lord, and the remainder went into the state coffers.
In addition to all this, the Emperor, as a true disciple of Colbert,
imposed upon foreign products taxes so heavy that they were in some
cases prohibitive. In matters of this kind his convictions differed from
those of his Chancellor, Kaunitz, who, though in agreement with his master
upon the principle of equality for purposes of taxation and upon the
expediency of adopting the least expensive method of collecting the
taxes, held that taxation should not be expected to meet more than the
indispensable necessities of the State ; while any alleviation of the public
burdens must,, in his view, presuppose an increase in the general prosperity
CH. XVItl.
640 Austria cmd tJie "Barrier" fortresses. [i7i6-'48
and therefore in the wealth of the country. But Joseph, to whom the
strengthening of; the army was a matter of the most immediate concern,
refused to sacrifice any possible source of income.
We pass once more to external events. The Treaty concluded on
November 16, 1715, with a view to the establishment of a "Barrier"
against the ambition of France, granted to the United Provinces the
right, of garrisoning seven fortified places in southern Belgium. The
contingent of troops occupying these fortresses was to number^ in time
of peace, 35,000 men, of whom three-fifths were to be furnished by Austria
and two-fifths by the Dutch Republic. AH the expense — it might be
1,250,000 florins — was to be defrayed by Belgium. This Treaty had
caused much dissatisfaction among the various populations, and the States
of Flanders and Btabant had stubbornly objected ; but during twenty-
five years Charles VI had submitted to this condition, which impaired
his sovereignty over the Netherlands. The War of the Austrian Succes-
sion had interrupted the observance of the Treaty; and in 1748, at
the Conference' of Aix-la-Chapelle, Kaunitz attempted to obtain its
withdrawal, supporting himself by the plea that the greater number of
the "Barrier" fortresses had been gradually dismantled after the French
victories ; and that their possession had therefore? ceased to be a matter
of any importance ; moreover, they had yielded so easily to the attack' of
Maurice de Saxe, that^ all could see how idle were the precautions ta^ken
by the 'Dutch in' their defence. ■ Besides this very admissible reason,
there was another, which the Austrian plenipotentiary did not mention :
the fact, namely, that the circumstances had greatly changed. When
the " Barrier " was established in 1715, Austria, England, and the United
Provinces were just emerging from a long struggle with Louis XIV,
their common enemy ; their interests were identical,, and they had all
agreed without demiu: upon the means to be adopted in order to restrain
the ambition of the conqueron But since that time thirty years had
passed away ; in 1748, Holland had been the accomplice of England
when the latter country betrayed the confidence of Austria, and Maria
Theresa was pondering the advisability of disengaging herself from the
Maritime Powers, in order to shift the basis of her policy in the direction
of the French alliance. Under such conditions, for Austria to receive
Dutch troops into the country could only be, to say the \ha&t, to expbse
herself to a highly inconvenient surveillance. ' . . . ■ •
But the United Provinces, vaguely conscious of these new tendencies
on the part of the Empress, insisted with considerable asperity on the
observance of their right, and the only success achieved by Kaunitz was
the suppression, in the new diplomatic contract, of the annual subsidy.
This henceforth remained unpaid ; there was no further attempt to save
the fortresses from falling into decay, and the Republic, no longer setting
any store by their preservation, left in the improtected towns of Helium
1664-1782] 'Betgium abandoned by the Dutch garrisons. 641
thc! mere semblance of a garrison, exactly large enough to affirm a right
which it did not please her to abandon openly. During the whole period,
of the occupation, difficulties were continually springing up in the towns
of the Barrier between the national authorities and the Dutch com-
manders. Independently of the religious complications resulting from
the presence of Protestant garrisons, incessant disputes arose between
the Belgian magistrates and the Dutch officers— rdisputes that were
often very serious in character, respecting the police, the chase, fishing,
economic matters, and so forth, often involving the two Governments in
grave anxiety. Joseph seized the opportunity of his journey to the
Netherlands to examine the question for himself at dose quarters. He
was of opinion that the general condition of the Austrian monarchy did
not wan-ant him in despatching , to the Netherlands a body of troops
boasting sufficient strength to resist a possible attack. Moreover, scarcely
one of the fortresses was now in a condition to endure a siege, and there
was reason to fear that an enemy would have no difficulty in establishing
a position in one or more of them, and might, if it so chanced, thus
find a substantial base from which to prolong the horrors of war. The
restoration of the fortresses to efficiency would have demanded sacrifices,
which the state of the Treasury did not warrant ; thus the wiser plan
would be to keep in perfect condition only Antwerp and Luxemburg, as
strategic positions of the first importance — ^and to dismantle the rest.
Besides the considerable economic advantages which this proceeding
afforded to the towns concerned, it also furnished a method of getting
rid of the Dutch in the natural order of events. The Republic submitted;
the Belgian forts were evacuated under the pretext of a change of
garrison, and no fresh troops were sent to fill them, so that on April 18,
1782, there was not a single Dutch soldier left in Belgiiim. But a short;
time sufficed to allay the agitation caused in the United Provinces by
the unexpected, deimands of the Emperor. The Minister of France
accredited at the HagUe wrote to his Gbvemment that the mass of the
pfeople were but littlie affected; but the statesmen could not accept the
transaction with such philosophic resignation — on the contrary, there
were many who nursed resentment on that score against the. Court of
Vienna, and held the suppression of the Barrier to be a cruel stab at the
dignity of the nation.
When Spain, after a war of eighty years' duration, had been com-
pelled to recognise the independence of the United Provinces and to give
up to them certain prosperous colonies, the Treaty of Miinster, sanctioning
a state of things which had long been in existence, had closed the Scheldt
to Belgian vessels and reserved the freedom of the rivet to the Dutch
navy and mercantile marine. On a later occasion, the Convention of
September 20, 1664, which went even further than this stipulation, so
disastrous to the trade of Belgium, had ceded to the States General the
fort of Liefkenshoeck, in Belgian territory. In this way, the fronting
c. ir. B. VI. CH. xviii, 41
642 Proposed reopening of the Scheldt. [I7i5-8i
guns of Lillo arid of Lief kenshoeck gave Hdlland the control over the
two banks of the Scheldt all the way to the sea.. The Government of the
Hague, by wajr of asserting its power, stationed off Lillo a nippelio levy'
import arid export duty on cargoes from Antwerp going to Saftingen or
Doel, which were Btelgiari possessions, arid found many ways of annoying
the inhabitants along the banks. The Treaty of 1715 left this state of
things unaltered, and at the Cdnfei'erice held at Aii-la-Chapelle in 1748,
the Ministers of Maria Theresa, preoccupied with the question of the
Barrier, seem not to have discussed the opening of the Scheldt.
In 1780, Antwerp could number no more than from 35,000 to 45,000
inhabitants, 12,000 of whom were beholden to the public charity. Such
was the condition of affairs when, on December 20, 1780, Erigland,
annoyed At the refusal of the Republic to make common cause with her
against the disaffection in America, declared war upon her former ally.
To outwit her enemies, and to open new markets for British trade, the
Eflglish Cabinet did not scruple to hint to the Viennese Government
that 'they might take advantage of the occasion to restore the prosperity
of Antwerp, by reopening the Scheldt. It was inevitable that these
advances should be favourably regarded by the Emperor, who, in his
eager ambition to raise his dominions to the rank of a maritime Power,
could ill brook the humiliating dependence forced upon him so long as
the chief river, of the Netherlands was closed to vessels under his. flag.
He wrote to Kauriitz to point out to him the happy opportunity now
at hand; but the Chancellor's reply was far from encouraging. He
directed his master's attention to the inevitable risk of letting loose a
general war, merely for the slender advantage "of enriching certain
individuals of Antwerp." The proceedings df England, he wrote, were
inspired by a momentaryirritation agaiiist the States General, and to lend
countenance to her interested projects would involve the risk of upsetting
the existing system of alliances, which enabled Austria to defend herself
at need against either Prussia or the Porte^ without fear of being
worsted. Clearly, Kaunitz could not admit that the particular advantage
of the Netherlands balanced the general interests of the monarchy.
During his journey in 1781, Joseph II received numerous petitions
demanding the opening of the Scheldt. He revealed his intentions to
no one; his, language was always the same, and he said to the Minister
of, France what he said to the Burgomaster of Antwerp: that, so long
as the Treaty of Munster remained in force, there could be no thought
of restoring the freedom of the river. The truth is that the question
was never out of his thoughts; but he was apparently scheming to
obtain the support of France in carrying out his design, and therefore
postponed to a more propitious moment the opening, of negotiations
or of a campaign wi^;h a view to the liberation of the Scheldt, The
demands of Antwerp were premature; the occasion was not yet ripe;
the best policy was to wait, and to discourage impatience by citing
1783-4] Austro-Dutch quarrel as to the Scheldt. 643
some treaty as a pretext for inaction. Two years later, circumstances
seeming more favourable, the Emperor openly advanced his claims.
In 1783, an incident, in itself devoid of importance, marked the
beginning of an affair which almost involved the European Powers in
war, and which was not to be ended before two troubled years had
passed. On' October 17 the Dutch commander of the fort of Lief kens-
hoeck permitted liie burial of one of his soldiers in the Belgian cemetery
of the disputed \dUage of Doel. Some days afterwards, the bailiff,
acting on the orders of the Government, caused the body to be exhumed
and thrown into the moat of Liefkenshoeck. Almost at the same time,
Joseph II delivered to the States General a veritable catalogue of
territorial grievances laid at the door of the Republic, styled a " Summary
of the Emperor's Claims." This document practically set forth that, if
the United Provinces consented to open the Scheldt and allowed the
Emperor to trade with India, he would abandon the question of the
indivisible sovereignty of Maestricht. He added that he considered the
Scheldt to be entirely open to the two riverain Powers, and that " if on
the side of the Republic the lesist insult were offered to the Imperial
flag, his Majesty would look upon it as a declaration of war and a formal
act of hostility." The States General returned a stubborn refusal, and
Joseph lost no time in carrying out his threat. Two ships of the
Austrian navy were ordered to navigate the Scheldt, one in either direc-
tion. Their instructions were, not to allqw themselves to be stopped,
but to avoid violent measures. The brigantine Loui$ was stppped by
gun-fire near Saftingen, the boundary of the territory of the Austrian
Netherlands ; the other could not get beyond Flushing (October, 1784).
The Emperor instantly broke off all diplomatic relations. This naval
demonstration on the part of Austria aroused an extraordinary agitation
throughout the Netherlands, both north and south. In the United
Provinces, opinion was unanimous in favour of urging the Government to
defend, to the last gasp, the nation's rights and her honoiu*. Nor was. the
struggle confined to a question of disputed frontiers, but it was raised
immediately to higher ground: the point at issue was the freedom of
seas and rivers, the opening of the Scheldt, claimed by the one State in
the name of natural right, while the other opposed the claim with an
appeal to treaties safeguarding its independence. Joseph IPs violation
of the Treaty of Miinster, the work of the Great Powers, had the con-
sequence of making the question of the Scheldt an international affair
of the utmost gravity. It attracted the attention of the world at large
fmd of legal specialists, as well as of politicians in every part of Europe,
and innumerable dissertations for or against the Emperor's claims
appeared in every language. Already before the naval incident, the
Cabinet of Versailles had recommended moderation to the rival Powers:
Even while they mobilised their troops and declared their resolution to
resist to the death, the States General were well aware that they could
OH. xvin. 41 — 2
64:4: Meaning of Joseph Il'sidtimatum. French mediation. [i784
not sustain without assistance the attack of the Imperial forces, and
solicited the ifitetvention of Prance. The Emperor on his side, while
asserting that he was about to send out 80,000 men against the Republic,
counted on the connivance of Louis XVI, his ally by blood as well as by
policy^ to defeat the Dutch without draiving a sword.
He was not slow to remind' the Ministers of his brother-in-law of the
services rendered to French trade by the port of Ostend during the
American War, aiid he threw out a hint that Antwerp might prove
equally useful. But France had mAhy reasons, both political and com-
mercial, for caution in her conduct towards the Republic; if Marie-
Antoinette, at the instigation of Mercy, championed her brother's' cause,
she had Vergennes against hcf, supported by the whole Cabinet and by
the King himself. French opinion was clear that Joseph II wished to
annihilate the United Provinces, or at all events to make himself master
of a, great part of their dominions. We know the truth now, through
the Emperor's correspondence : his real thought was that war was to be
a last resort, to which he would not betake himself until all the resoiirces
of diplomacy had been exhau^ed. His ultimatum was merely a device
to intimidate the enemy. France (of this he had proof) dreaded war,
which would mean ruin for her already embarrassed finances; and, he
argued, she would ensure peace by supporting his plans with regard to
the Scheldt, Should his wishes on this point be met, he would make all
the concessions compatible with his dignity in order to bring about a
friendly understanding, and thus ward off the possibility of a campaign,
so greatly dreaded by Prance. But he knew vei*y tvell how to compensate
himself, for this conciliatory attitude. Loiiis XVI, delighted to have
been able to escape the giving of armed assistance, would lend powerful
help to his brother-in-law's project of exchanging the Austrian Nether-
lands for Bavaria — a scheme to which we shall return. Joseph II was
soon to learn that he had deceived himself eg^egiously. It was true
that France was anxious to avoid war at any price; but, contrary to the
hopes of the Emperor, she succeeded in avoiding it without turning her
back on the United Provinces and without facilitating the desired
exchange.
Louis XVI had offered to mediate, and the offer was accepted.
Joseph II lost no time in making an important concession : while his
ultimatiim demanded the opening of the Scheldt, under the penalty of
an instant declaration of wa,r, he had now an alternative to propose.
The Dutch should either grant the freedom of the river or give up
Maestricht and the contested districts in Flanders. But the French
Ministry feared that the quarrel, if prolonged, would only incline the
politicians of Holland towards an alliance with England— a result which
would be greatly to the detriment of France in the event, always a
possibility, of war with England. Further, the language employed by
Vergennes lacked candou*, and in action he lost his presence of mind.
i78*-5] The Scheldt and the Bavaro-Belgicun Exchange. 645
The declaration of the mediating Power explicitly recognised the right
of the Republic over the disputed river. The King proposed the
resumption of negotiations, dealing with no questions other than those
enumerated in the Emperor's "Summary"; any other course of action
entailed the risk of disturbing the Powers. At the same time, t^yo
detachments of French troops took up their position, the one on the
ilhine, the other on the frontier of Flanders. This was a severe blow to
the Emperor. He felt that he could no longer persist in his claims to
the Scheldt Avitlvout exposing himself to a war which he would have
to encounter without an ally. He put a good face, however, on a bad
business ; and, feeling that the slightest manifestation of vexation might
jeopardise his yet unrevealed plan of the exchange of the Netherlands,
he concealed his annoyance. " So long as we have still need of the Court
of France," he wrote to Leopold, " we must swaUow her humour and
keep her in ignorance of our real opinions." He then suddenly showed
himself much less exacting in his demands, furthering the cause of peace
in accordance with the unconcealed sentiments of the Cabinet of Versailles,
and calculating that the latter would evince its gratitude by helping him
in the matter of Bavaria.
He did not, however, wish to expose his schemes in full daylight.
His plan was rather to keep alive a wholesome fear by refusipg to check
the march of his troops towards the Netherlands ; for such an attitude
must, according to his reckoning, predispose France to facilitate the
exchange, and thus remove the fear of war by destroying its very motive.
In the light of this secret design of the Emperor, it becomes easy to
imderstand the contradictions apparent in his policy — his persistent pre-
parations for war going hand in hand with declarations of a singularly
conciliatory nature. The first and principal concession had reference to
the Scheldt: in the protocols of the Conference so complete a silence
was maintained regarding this river, that Austria seemed to have
abandoned the idea of making any further claim upon the right of
navigating it, and to have resolved to restrict herself henceforth to
territorial demands. On the other hand, Louis XVI took ' up a firm
attitude towards the Republic, threatening to abandon her unless all her
imreasonable pretensions were given up. Thus, &,t last, the disputants
came to terms. The Scheldt remained closed ; but the possession of the
portion of the river between Saftingen and Antwerp was guaranteed to
the Austrian Netherlands; and the States General were in consequence
debarred from levying any toll there for the future, or in any way
impeding trade ; they were obliged to pull down certain forts and to give
up others. The Emperor received ten million florins in exchange for
the sovereignty of Maestricht, and the frontiers of Brabant and Limburg
were • readjusted, somewhat to his advantage. Such were the main
stipulations of the Treaty concluded at Fontainebleau on November 8
1785. From the point of view of modern ideas, the cause upheld by
OH. XVIII.
646 Treaty of Fontainehleau. — The Exchange scheme. [i785
Joseph il was that of liberty and justice. But, if the question be
regarded strictly from its practical side, and all the circumstances takea
into account, the Emperor must be held to have been wrong in wishing
to decide, summarily and upon his own responsibility, a question of
the most delicate nature, by refusing to recognise the existence of a
particular clause in a solemn Treaty, to which all the Powers of Europe
had pledged themselves and which Charles VI had in 1715 accepted
without demur. Whether or not the son of Maria Theresa would have
attained his end if he had betaken himself to negotiatioiis with the
various States which had given their signature to the act of 1648, it is
impossible to say positively; but it is certain that the course which he
actually pursued brought him into collision with the desperate energy of
the Dutch, showed him his ally France ready to turn her weapons against
him, and struck an humiliating blow at his self-respect. In the words
of a receiit writer, this Prince, who with all his faults can stiU stir
sympathy because he was sincere, was inspired for the most part by
excellent intentions and lawful motives; but the means adopted by
hini in order to realise his projects were generally maladroit and ex-
travagant. If, however, the Treaty of Fontainehleau did not procure
for the Belgians all the advantages they could have wished, and, if
they saw themselves baulked of the hope which had for an instant
been theirs, that the fetters which held and bound the port of Antwerp
might be broken in pieces before their eyes, yet it is well at least to
acknowledge that this was one of the most. glorious treaties concluded
for many years past by the sovereigns of the Netherlands with their
neighbours. Flanders restored to the boundaries of 1664 and assured
of the freedom of her rivers, the frontiers of Brabant, which included
Antwerp, advanced towards the north ; liberty gained to make regula-
tions about the customs and trade according as the interest of the country
should dictate, in opposition to the stipulations made at Miinster ; the
humiliating treaties of 1715 and 1718 annulled and territory of con-
siderable extent acquired beyond the Meuse — these were results of
sufficient importance to fill the Belgians with gratitude towards the
Imperial Government,
While negotiations were pending as to the freedom of the Scheldt,
Joseph II had reverted to his schemes about Bavaria, though not without
modifying them to a certain extent. His design now was to secure this
country, which was marked off by well-defined boundaries and could
easily be ^njalgamal^d with his own territory, thus rounding off the
Austrian dominions and increasing his power of withstandingFrederick II,
by ceding in exchange for i^ the Austrian Netherlands, which by reason
of their remoteness were difiicult to defend in the case of a possible
attack, and which, in their e?;travagant particularism, were strenuously
opposed to his views as a reformer. In this project the Emperor had
1785-6] The Austrian design and the FUrstenbund. 647
Catharine II for an ally, having induced her to believe that Austria
could only cooperate seriously with the designs of Russia in the eastj if
she were secured, by the projected acquisition, against possible attack on
the part of Prussia. The diplomacy of Russia played a very active
part in the design; nor had Rumyantseff much difficulty in winning
the ear of Charles Theodore. The Elector was old, cared but little for
his new domains, and was not embarrassed by patriotic. scruples; The
territory of the Austrian Netherlands being the larger, the inequality
was to be made good by the addition of Salzburg. The Elector was
to receive the Netherlands under the designation of the kingdom of
Burgundy, but curtailed by the transfer of the provinces of Limburg,
Namur, and Luxemburg to the Archbishop of Salzbuirg in the way of
compensation ; the attempt was also to be made to secure to that prelate
the prince-bishopric of iiege. Such was the gist of the secret treaty
signed at Munich on January 15, 1785. But the acquiescence of the
Duke of Zweibriicken, heir presumptive of Charles Theodore, had still
to be obtained — and he was under Prussian influence. But Joseph II
reckoned on the support of Russia and France. France, however, played
him false ; and the Tsarina, fearing that she would be drawn into a war
against both France and Prussia, finally made her concurrence dependent
on the consent of the Duke of Zweibriicken. The refusal of the Duke
was emphatic; and the Emperor, perceiving that he had been utterly
deceived and that success was out of the question, abandoned his project.
Frederick II had in secret carried on an ardent campaign against him at
the Courts of the Princes of the Empire, and had, as is related else-
where, succeeded in gaining, on July 23, 1785, the signatiu?es of fifteen
German (Governments to the Filrstenbwnd, an alliance of the IVinces
directed to thie maintenance of the constitutional rights of the Empire ;
nor was any attempt made to conceal the intention of this league,
which was opposition — if necessary armed opposition — to the projected
exchange of Bavaria.
When Frederick II died on August 17, 1786, Joseph ,11 mediated a
reconciliation with Prussia, hoping to obliterate the traces of the bitter
rivalry which had torn Germany asunder. He wrote to Kaunitz that
the establishment of goodwill was not impossible, and might eventually
secure to the two monarchies the lead in European politics ;. beyond a
doubt, he added, an understanding of the kind could never have come
to pass between Maria Theresa and Frederick, for the hostility : which
prevailed ; bet jveen them arose from causes too deeply rooted ; but
circumstances had now altered, many prejudices had disappeared, and
this alliapce between two peoples of the same race and of the same
language was greatly to be desired. But the Chancellor, in his devbtion
to the system of which he had been the architect, maintained that there
could be no sincere alliance between two Powers whose interests must
always be mutually opposed, until one of them had been reduced to
CB. XVIII.
648 Austro-Russian war against Turkey. [i783-9
^subordinate rankt Austria would not have a free hand in the east until
Prussia had been incapacitated from doing her any injury. While the
Emperor was occupied in this discussion with his Minist^rj the favourable
opportunity -was allowed to escape, and the futility of any- attempt to
bring about an alliance between the two Powers soon became appai-ent,
when Frederick William II retained in office Hertzberg^ the determined
foe of Austrian influence.
It will be remembered that early in 1783 Austria and Russia had
concluded an arrangement "Whereby the Tsarina was authorised to annex
the Crimea and Kuban, and the Danube was opened to Russian ships.
Catharine's dream was now to annihilate the domination of Turkey and
to establish in its stead a Christian empire at Constantinople; and it
seemed to her that, if this project were to be carried out, the Austrian
alliance was indispensable, ' There is strong evidence that she tried to
purchase it, hinting at a readjustment of the frontiers towards Galicia
and the Bukowina, together with the cession of part of Wallachia, and
of Venetian Istria and Dalmatia. Thanks to the assistance of Austria,
Russia extended her borders considerably towards the Black Sea, making
formidable arsenals of Kherson and Sevastopol, and Austrian mediation
aided her in becoming mistress of Georgia (1783-5). During the month
of April, 1787, Joseph II met Catharine at Kherson, in an interview which
was shortened by the news of the revolt of the Austrian Netherlands.
A few weeks later, the Russian ambassador laid before the Divan the
new demands of his sovereign. He was answered by a counter-proposal
involving the restoration by Russia of the Crimea. When the diplomatist
refused his signature on the plea that he was not empowered to give it,
the Turkish Government threw him into prison. Such a violation of
the law of nations could not fail to provoke war, and, as is related else-
where, a close alliance was concluded between St Petersburg and Vienna.
Russia was but ill' prepared, and the Turks displayed an unforeseen
strength ; and, though the Austrian army suffered no defeat^ the results
of the campaign of 1788, which is narrated elsewhere, were poor enough,
if compared with the hopes which ushered it in. Joseph II was not dis-
couraged, however, and the Austro-Russian Treaty was renewed in 1789.
The second campaign was more successful, and on September 29 Belgrade
was taken by Laudon, who pursued his advantage as far as Bosnia,
The revolt of the Austrian Netherlands bore no resemblance to the
contemporary insuiTections in America and France, or to the Revolution
in England a century before. It was of an exceptional — possibly A
unique — character, for in this case the sovereign was ahXioUs for reform
in the spirit of modern ideas, while the revolutionary party was con^
servative to the last degree. The Belgi&n Provinces had been ruled
from time immemorial by institutions, incongruous enough, retaining
for the most part the methods of the Middle Ages. Each Province
1781-6] Reuolt of the Aitstrian Netherlands. 649
formed a miniature State, with its own Constitution, its own r€!pres6nta-
tion, its own magistrates. To Joseph, who could not but be painfully
impressed by the inner inconsistency of the Belgian institutions and laws,
this time-honoured state of things seemed to demand radical alteration.
To the mind of the young Emperor, no freedom was possible for a nation
unless all the citizens enjoyed the same kind and the same amount of
liberty ; everything that he called "an abuse," or "antediluvian rubbish,"
he condemned, failing to understand the Belgian character, which Charles
of Lorraine had appreciated so exactly. After the death of that Prince,
Maria Theresa had entrusted the general government of the Netherlands
to her daughter, Maria Christina, conjointly with her husband, Duke
Albert of Saxe-Teschen, and Joseph II had confirmed the nomination.
From the beginning of his reign, edicts followed one another in rapid
succession. First came, on November 12, 1781, the Patent of Tolerance,
which aroused the most fiery opposition on the part of all the civil,
judicial, and religious authorities ; this appears, indeed, entirely natural,
if the exclusive character of Catholicism, and the preponderating in-
fluence it had hitherto wielded, are borne in mind. Then followed,
in rapid sequence, the Edict of November 28, 1781, rendering the
monastic Orders entirely independent of all extraneous authority ; that
of December 6, 1781, forbidding any appeal to the Court of Rome for
dispensations in questions of marriage ; that of March 17, 1783, declaring
the Emperor's intention of suppressing certain monasteries and devoting
their revenues to a more useful purpose; and, finally, the Edict of
November 24, 1783, forbidding assent to papal Bulls conferring benefices.
On February 11, 1786, Josephll issued an order that the JCermesse,
a local festival, should be celebrated on the same day in every commune.
He was accused of wishing to disturb the ordinary customs and pleasures
of the people^ — and this for no really advantageous purpose, but simply
in order to gratify his passion for uniformity ; the truth, however, is, that
these festivals, when celebrisited on different dates,' used to attract huge
crowds from the neighbouring districts, and meant for the working classes
much expenditure on^ amusements, food and drink, even apart from the
fact that thJey commonly ended in unseemly drunkenness and in vehement,
even murderous^ brawls. The dissatisfaction of the clergy reached its
height upon the appearance of the Edict of October 16, 1786, estab-
lishing at Louvain one general seminary for the whole of the Netherlands.
The Emperor, wishing the young candidates for the priesthood to be
equipped with a thorbugh education and flawless morals, gave out that
no man could be ordained a priest without having studied theology at
Louvain for five years. It followed that the Belgian clergy, whose
morality was for the most part unimpeachable, even if their learning
left something to be desii-ed, felt themselves greatly aggrieved by the
unjust suspicion to which the Edict gave voice. They submitted, how-
ever, after lodging futile protests with the Government; only one
650 Reli^oiits and Judicial reforms in'Selgium. [i786-7
prpjatei, the Bishop of Najwur, refused to send his seminarists to Louvain.
The professors fqr the new college were ill-chosen ;. some were accused of
profe^^ing doctrines , of doubtful orthodoxy, and others were the reverse
qf : exemplary in conduct. : Disturbances arose and became serious, so
,that the military had to be called in to restore order. The majority of
t|ie; seminarists took refuge in flight, arid but few remained at Louvain.
, The reforms which have been described met with but a sorry reception;
but the opposition only became really dangerous when Joseph II,
after having dealt his blow at the religious institutions, threatened^ by
two patents issued on January.!, 1787, to; disturb likewise the civil
order. Thfe first of these iiitrdduced radical changes" into the administra-
tive system : it substituted a single Council f6r the three collateral
Councils and divided the Provinces into nine Circles, administered by
as many mtendants, who were invested with wide powers in matters of
policy and finance. The States saw almost the whole management of
affairs snatched from their grasp, leaving therii practically nothing but
the power of voting, subsidies. ' Had this measure strengthened the
action of the central power, it might have been advantageous to the
public interest; but a grave mistake was made in granting undue
authority to officials who were to all intents and purposes irresponsible.
However that may be, it is never safe to introduce even the most
admirable of innovations without ; employing the utmost discretion and
tact, and neither of these qualities distinguished the Austrian rulers.
, In his other declaration the Emperor suppressed all the civil tribunals,
and established in their stead sixty-four tribunals of the first instance,
two Councils of Appeal and a Supreme Council of Revision. Judged on
its own merits,, the new organisation was well conceived, and it intro-
duced into the administration of justice an order and unity hitherto
conspicuous by their absence. In fact, the; system at present in force
in Belgium is nothing but an imitation, of the Josephine; but the
reform was one which contradicted the spirit of the Constitution, since
the judicial administration, like the Constitution itself, could not be
remodelled, savC; by common consent of the Estates and the Crown.
And, when it is added that the displaced magistrates were left without
tlie indemnity to which they were lawfully entitled, it will be readily
understood : that the storm was not long in breaking. On April 29,
1787, the Estates of Brabant refused further payment, of the ordinary
subsidy — a resolution involving the suspension of taxes, until the -edicts
hostile to the Constitution should be revoked. In the other Provinces
the Estates adopted a less radical attitude, contenting thraaselves with
addressing veheinent remonstrances to thei Emperor. It is iworthy of
xemark that these protests scarcely touched upon the religious reforms
(which were apparently regarded, from that time fotward, as an accom-
plished fact), but concerned themselves exclusively with the political
aspect of the question.
1787-8] Opposition to the reforms. Their partial withdrawal. 651
The Governors-General, intimidated by the bold proceeding of the
Estates of Brabant, and by the decision of the Judicial Council of that
Province, declaring the institution of the tribunals of first instance to be
illegal, and alarmed by the universal outburst of dissatisfaction, were in
no haste to put the Emperor's wishes into execution. At the same time,
Belgiojoso, the unpopular Minister, left the country. Meanwhile, the
Emperor was travelling with the Tsarina in the Crimea, and during his
absence Kaunitz replied to the report of the Governors, persuading them
to wait quietly for the decision which the sovereign would make when
he returned. But fears were entertained in Belgium of resentment on
the part of Joseph II, and preparations for armed defence were set on
foot. Henri van der Noot, an advocate practising before the Council of
Brabant, an ambitious upstart not devoid of cleverness, published a
violent pamphlet on the rights of the people of Brabant and the recent
interference with their ancient Constitution, the Joyeuse Enirke; he
enrolled volunteers under the banner of the Serments, a kind of citizen
guard, whose function was to defend the town in case of need. This
example was followed in the other Provinces, and there was no attempt to
conceal the scheme of raising in this manner a national army to protect
the threatened privileges. At the same time, the Estates of Brabant
took secret measures to obtain the intervention of France. The Emperor,
in his reply to his sister Christina, made no attempt to conceal his dis-
satisfaction, but consented to the temporary suspension of the edicts until
he should have had the opportunity of consulting at Vienna with the
deputies of all the Provinces. The result of these deliberations was that
the patents of January 1, 1787, were definitely withdrawn; but the
edicts bearing upon religious questions were left in force nevertheless.
A few months earlier, such a concession would have saved the whole
situation ; but the party of resistance had learnt its own strength, and
would unquestionably lose no time in making demands of a more and
more exacting nature. The clergy, now assured of the concurrence of
the Estates, refused to accept the conciliatory measures adopted- by the
Government in the matter of the general seminary, and the Bishops
utterly refused to cooperate in the administration of the odious innova-
tions. The new Minister Plenipotentiary, Trautmannsdorff, who upheld
a pacific policy, found his suggestions but coldly received at Vienna, and
Joseph II associated him with the Governors-General in a charge of
incompetence. The Emperor, indeed, entrusted the command of the
troops to General d' Alton, and made him independent of the Minister—
a serious mistake which could not but entail grave difficulties. The
inopportune deployment of some troops caused an affray at Brussels in
which some citizens were killed or wounded (January S2, 1788). A few
days later, Antwerp was the scene of further deadly struggles, when
d' Alton tried to close by force the : episcopal seminaries of Malines and
Antwerp. These disturbances were followed by illegal measures against
OB. ZVIII.
652 Outbreak of the Belgian revolt. [i789
the newspapers and by arbitrary arrests of membets of the Opposition
in the Estates, and all public meetings were forbidden. The hopes df a
reconciliation flow became more and more doubtful ; and, in November,
1789, the Estates of Brabant and Hainault refused to vote the subsidies.
Joseph II answered this manifestation of hostility by abolishing the Joyewje
Entree;, at the same time he suppressed the "Permanent Deputation " of
the Estates, dismissed the members of the Council of Justice, and placed
Brabant under the jurisdiction of the Grand Council of Malines. Almost
■tit the same moment, the Archbishop of Malines condemned as heretical
the'iteadiing of the General Seminai^j and. wild riots simultaneously
broke out in many parts of the country. , Van der Noot, for his part,
convinced that it was impossible to succeed without foreign help, was
carrying on an intrigue with the Hague and Berlin. This short-sighted
politician imagined' that the United Provinces and Prussia, being hostile
to Austria, would provide the malcontents with sufficient troops, and
ask in return merely a pecuniary indemnityi He traded on the uneasi-
ness inspired in Berlin by the close alliance between the Courts of
St Petersburg and Vienna; and, on the other hand, he hinted to the
leading statesmen of the United Provinces that Austria would not be
slow to undertake the conquest of their territory. The violation of the
Barrier Treaty and the attempt to obtain the liberation of the Scheldt
had been (so he said) the first indications of a project to which the
Emperor would take the earliest possible opportunity of returning. He
counted on the fears. thus aroused, to bring the two Governments into
active and effectual corroboration. There had arisen in the Austrian
Netherlands, besides the ultra-conservative party headed by van der
Noot, which included the mass of the people, an important body drawn
from the most cultured classes of the nation, directed by the lawyer
Vonck, and drawing its inspiration from French Liberal ideas. It would
not have been difficult for the Austrian Government to win to their side
these reforming spirits; but the blundering methods of their agents
drove the adherents of Vonck towards an alliance with the partisans of
van der Noot. A regiment of patriots was organised in the Dutch
territory; but d' Alton j failing to realise that this was a struggle in good
earnestj and thinking to inspire the Provinces with greater respect, took
the false step of dispersing his troops ; and the patriots, under Colonel
van der Meerset, defeated the Austrian corps of Schroeder at Turnhout,
and seized Ghent. D' Alton, with incredibly weakness and lack of
decision^ retreated instantly to Luxemburg. His disgrace followed
forthwith ; Josieph II entrusted his command to General Ferraris, and,
since the complications in the east prevented the despatch to Belgiuna
of an army strong enough to quell the revolt, he sent the Imperial Vice-
Chancellor, Philip von Cohenzly to Brussels, with full powers to negotiate
an arrangement, having for its main clauses the reestablishment of
the Joyeme B^He, the suppression of the General Seminary, and an
1784-9] Belgian Republic proclaimed. — Hungary. 653
unconditional amnesty. But the time had gone by; Cobenzl's mission
failed of its desired effect,' and in December, 1789, the States General
proclaimed the deposition of Joseph II and the foundation of the
Republic of the United States of Belgium. Only a short time was,
however, to elapse before they split asunder into two irreconcilable
parties — the Statists of van der Noot, on the one hand, and the
Democrats of Vonck on the other. This schism was destined to bring
about the downfall of the new Government.'
Serious troubles had arisen in Hungary almost at the same moment
as in Belgium. In Hungary, too, an unfavourable reception had been
given to a series of religious reforms similar to those promulgated in the
Netherlands — such as the diminution of the episcopal revenues, the
prohibition of pluralism, the reorganisation of parochial administration,
the establishment of new seminaries '; certain innovations in the adminis-
trative system had also excited complaint ; but^ as they did not affect the
Constitution, they had met with no violent opposition. The net result
was, however, a widespread sense of uneasiness and apprehension, height-
ened by the fact that the Emperor was delaying his coronation ; he was
accordingly suspected of intentions inimical to the liberties of the people.
The truth is that the Hungarian Constitution, based as it was entirely
on privilege, was opposed to all the instincts of Joseph II. By the
terms of this Constitution, all the rights belonged to the Magyars, the
descendants of the ancient conquerors ; the descendants of the conquered
peoples, on the contrary, were literally kept in a state of slavery.
The Hungarian nobility, jealously attached to their privileges, which
they regarded as reciprocally binding on the sovereign, thought to treat
with him as one power with another, affecting to know him not as
Emperor, but simply as King of Hungary. They could not feel more
than a qualified sympathy with a pi?ince whose levelling principles were
well known to the whole world, and whose innovations were, one arid all,
regarded with suspicion. When in 1784 he prescribed the employment
of German instead of Latin as the official language ^he was accused of
wishing to Germanise the country ; and this measure has been represented
as the first step towards the introduction of German officials into the
Hungarian administration of Hungary' — a suspicion wholly, unfounded,
for throughout the reign of Joseph II all official posts were reserved for
natives of the country. The real truth is that he aimed at centralising
every institution; thus he introduced into Hungary the division into
Circles, each with a Crown official at its head. There were other
measures, too, which ruffled the nobles: the organisation of the Courts
of justice in three grades, the abolition of serfdom, the revision of the
register of property, the suppression of fiscal immunities. Yet the
reforms did not prove so beneficial as their author had hoped, for the
historic law that alterations for the better, if too abrupt, arie perilous,
654 Hungarian disturbances. — Death of Joseph II. [i 784-90
was once more fulfilled. Violent disputes having arisen between feudal
landowners' and tenants, the latter sent to the Emperor delegatesi who
subsequently drew up a formal list of their claims. Joseph II, to whom
insubordination was quite as hateful as servility^ dismissed them harshly.
The peasants rose in fury ; a regular Jacquerie was organised, hundreds
of castles fell a prey to the flames, and the landowners took up arms in
brutal retaliation. ;
The Emperor restored, order by, putting forth an imposing array of
military forces, but showed himself full of clemency towards the be-
wildered peasants, refusing to lend an eaf to the grievances of the nobles.
But the crisis was only deferred. When the imminence of war with
Turkey forced the Government to demand subsidies and soldiers from
Hungary, the request was met by the stipulation, as a preliminary con-
dition, that the Diet should be convoked. And, when the Emperor was
so ill-advised as to object that the circumstances were unfavourable, the
fetment in men's minds reached such a pitch that Kaunitz exclaimed,
" Here we have the story of Belgium over again." Beyond a doubt, the
majority of the Hungarians were in favour of remaining, united with
Austria, while retaining their privileges ; but one section of the nobility
went further, and demanded the support of the King of Prussia. A
revolution seemed inevitable; and, meanwhile, the condition of aflairs
outside the country was far from reassuring. Turkey and Prussia had
just concluded an offensive and defensive alliance. From Prance^ herself
in revolution, nothing was to be hoped, while Russia was paralysed by
Sweden. . On February 4, 1790, Joseph II decreed that everything should
be restored to the condition in which it had stood at the time of the
death of Maria Theresa ; the single reform of his to which he adhered
was the abolition of serfdom. The fair dreams of his youth had vanished,
and his days were numbered ;, he prepared himself bravely for death, and
expired on February 10, 1790, charging the Belgians, with his last
breath, with having failed to understand him.
The most conflicting judgments have been passed upon the character
and actions of Joseph II. Historians have dealt with him as their
political prejudices inclined, them— r-while some exalt him to the skies,
seeing in him the martyr of public ignorance and ingratitude, others
pronounce him an unscrupulous seeker after fame, a savage despot,
trampling under his feet all the' feelings of his subjects. The truth may
probably be found midway between these extreme, opinions. The son of
Maria Theresa cannot be pronounced impeccable — ^he was human : we
have had occasion to observe that his reforms, if for the most part
fundamentally just, were not introduced with the fitting discretion ; but
it is impossible to mistake either the purity of his intentions or that
deep love for his fellow-men which was his inspiring motive. It must
be remembered that the violent animosity aroused . by hiva. was due,
above all, to the fact that his projects injuriously aff"ected all privileged
i79o] Character of J os^h II. — Accession of Leopold II. 655
persons, 6f whatever class — and privileged persons are always hostile
to any man who dares lay hands upon even the most questionable of
their prerogatives.' Most of his reforms have been put into practice
since his day, under circumstances more favourable to their realisation,
and there is scarcely one which has not triumpharitly endured the test
of time arid iexperience. '
A study of the foreign policy of Joseph H reveals the fact that he
was ambitious ; but his ambition might almost be called defensive in its'
nature. He judged^ and rightly, that the configuration of his dominions
exposed him to serious dangers; he aimedj in consequence!, at con-
solidating his scattered domains, and at ■ making them one compact
whole, capable of sturdy resistance against possible attacks on the part
of Prussia and Turkey ; and the project of exchanging the Netherlands,
which lay at a great distance froih the centre of his monarchy, and
uncomfortably near the enemies of Austria, had no other end in view.
He has been accusfed of attempting to aggi*andise himself at the expense
of Prussia. His letters establish, on the contrary, that he lived in
perpetual fear of the hostility of Frederick IIj and that, but for the
stiibborn resistance of Kaunitz, he would have sought an opportunity of
establishing friendly relations with his mother's ancient enemy ; but,
thwarted in this design, he was fain to turn to Russia, the Only Power
which he held capable df withstattding Prussia's growing strength.
Leopold II, successor to his brother Joseph, was imbued with the
same ideas, but equipped with more discretion and tact. He had had
no difficulty in carrying out, in his dominioiis of Tuscany, many of the
reforms which in Austi-iacalused so nluch trouble. He found a tottering
throne, Belgium set free from allegiance, excitement still intense' in
Hungary, "the capi,tal of the.Enipire a ptey to distraction^ the conferences
with "Turkey trok^n off, war with Prussia on the point of befing declared.
He had need of all the skill and all the genius for conciliation which he
displayed during his unfortunately* brief reign, to extricate himself with
honour from a sitiiajtiori so fraught with peril. Turning his attention first
to jffelgium, he repeated the propositions of Cobenzl, with the addition
that the Estates should henceforth have the right to meet vrhen they
judged it desiral^le, and that the Emperor should not have the power to
make new laws without their adhesion. Tb6 Congress of Brussels made
no reply, but the offers made by the sovereign lent new bitterness to the
party quarrels of the Belgians, arid a struggle between the political
factions became inevitable. The Emperor returned to the charge,
promising that the whole constitutional system should remain as it had
been under Maria Theresa, and that he would both grant a general
amnesty and introduce into the organisation of the Estates, with their
consent, such modifications as the public advantage should demand.
This time he was not left without a reply. On November 91, 1790,
656 Conciliatory policy of Leopold II, — His death. [1790-2
the Belgian Estates elected Archduke Charles, the third son of Leopold,
Hereditary Grand Duke, on condition that this dignity should never, be
merged in a sovereignty compelling the Grand Duke to reside elseyyhere
than in Belgium; for the nation attributed their calamities to the
distance separating them ,from their Princes, i 1
In the meantime, the Austrian army had invaded the Netherlands,
and the forces of the States^ retired without ; ah engagement. Their
commander, the Prussian General Schonfeld, who on this occasion played
a very equivocal i part, had, on November 25,' 1790, abandoned the
important strategic, position of Namur, and fled to France.. On Decern- ,
ber S the Austrians entered Brussels. Van der Noot and the more
compromised of the statesmen hastened to seek shelter abroad, Nego-
tiations were opened at the Hague, and resulted on December 1 1 in a
treaty which breathed the spirit of the proposals made by the Emperor
at the time of his accession. The Government exacted no other revenge
than that^of forcing the Archbishop of Malines to sing a Te Deum at,
the Church of St Gudule at Brussels, and of compelling him to make a
recantation which must have been a severe blow tp his self-respect.
Leopold II turned next to Prussia. He knew, without sharing, , the
prejudices of Kaunitz against that Power, and, leaving the Chancellor
outside the negptiations, he treated 4irectly with Frederick William II.
A conference was soon opened at Reichenbach, to determine the basis of
a treaty of reconciliation ; and shortly afterwards the Treaty of Sistova
(August 4i 1791) put an end to hostilities be.tween Austria and Turkey.
The political horizon was tjius unexpectedly swept clear of clouds, but
the condition of France was causing anxiety to the whole pf Europe,
Leopold's caution in dealing with the Eniigrants and their designs,
and his general wish to defer any definite actipii against the existing
regime in France, are described elsewhere. He consented, however, at
last, to see Count d'Artois at Mantua on May 20, 1791, when, with-
out consenting to make any definite promise, he spoke of a projected
understanding with the other Powers ; and, after the flight of Varennes,
he had an interview with the King of Prussia at Pillnitz in Saxony,
which resulted in the joint Declaration 6f August 27, 1791. They
wished to enable the King of France to secure the foundations of a
monarchical government, and had therefore "resolved to take prompt
measures, with one consent, to attain the end desired by both." War
was now inevitable, but Leopold died at the moment when the storm
was about to break, on March 1, 1792.
651
CHAPTER XIX
CATHARINE II.
" Happy the writer who a century hence shall tell the history of
Catharine II!" — so Voltaire exclaimed ^ in a letter to that monarch.
No historian, however, has yet been found to give a really conclusive
portrayal of her character in its whole bearing on the history of Russia ;
BilbassoflTs great work only reaches the year 1764. The task remains
unfulfilled to which Voltaire refers — with flattering intent it is true — but
at all events the Tsarina's memory has been cleared of a considerable
amount of detail traceable to unauthentic anecdotes with which an
interest not untinged by gossip and malice had surrounded it. Neither
the cheap designation, "the Northern Semiramis," nor any comparison
with Louis XIV, really goes to the root of this remarkable and complex
character, which we are now able to survey as it passed through the
history of the nation and the age to which it belonged.
Sophia Augusta Frederica, Princess of Anhalt-Zerbst, was bom at
Stettin on May 2, 1729*. Her father, Prince Christian August, was a
Prussian officer, a somewhat commonplace man of the old-fashioned
rigid Lutheran creed. The mother was Johanna Elizabeth, a princess
of Holstein-Gottorp, a superficial, lively woman, fond of intrigue, and her
husband's junior by many years ; she was a sister of Prince Carl August,
who died in St Petersburg as the betrothed of Elizsibeth, afterwards
Tsarina. The girl grew up amid the environment provided by a large
commercial centre and an officer's household conducted on a far from
brilliant scale. She was brought up strictly, but not very carefully, in
the habits and traditions of the petty princesses then so numerous in
Germany, only perhaps in circumstances modest below the average.
Her journeys aiForded her the best teaching she received ; but at an
early date she displa,yed a taste for reading. In no respect did she
stand forth among her fellows, except that, even in her youth, she was
supposed to have shown signs of a " serious, cold, calculating mind " ;
* All the dates in this chapter are N. S.
C. M. B. VI. OH. X.1X. 42
658 Catharine^s marriage. — Her Memoirs. [1744-59
exhibiting little or nothing of that liveliness, mental activity, and
passionate nature so strikingly evident in her as Tsarina.
The turning-point in her life was the invitation to St Petersburg from
the Empress Elizabeth of Russia which reached her and her mother at
Zerbst on January 1, 1744, followed by a letter from Frederick the Great
clearly stating the object of the summons, namely, the proposed marriage
of Princess Sophia to the Russian heir apparent, Peter Carl Ulrich of
Holstein-Gottorp, the son of Anna Petrovna, Elizabeth's elder sister.
The circumstances which had led the Tsarina to take this step
have been described in an earlier chapter. Mardefeld, Frederick IPs
ambassador at St Petersburg, had opposed the plan of marrying the
destined successor to the throne to a Saxon princess; it was probably
Podewils, the Prussian Minister, who first drew attention to the
young Princess of Anhalt-Zerbst. Frederick strongly recommended her
to Elizabeth, since as the daughter of one of his generals she was in
his interest, while at the same time in her he had not to "sacrifice"
a Prussian princess ; but, in thus deciding the marriage question, tlie
Empress in the main acted on her own judgment. It was in Sophia's
favour that she was descended from a small princely house, an alliance
with which could involve no difficulties for Russia; and that she was
cousin to the Tsarevich through her mother.
Mother and daughter set out on January 10, 1744; the father
giving them a great deal of advice which at a later date must have
struck his daughter as singularly homely, precise and narrow. This, girl
of fifteen was entering upon an utterly unknown future and an absolutely
strange world. She cannot have really experienced the feelings which
in her Memoirs she describes as having animated her at that time ; as
a matter of fact, this record was not taken in hand till after 1780.
It may be added that, though the Memoirs excited much and just
surprise when published in London by Alexander Herzen in 1859,
there can be no doubt as to their authenticity. Unfortunately, the
extremely interesting evidence as to Catharine's character furnished in
this work, one of the chief authorities for her biography, comes to aii
end with the close of 1759, and thus does not cover what is really its
most interesting period. The Memoirs cannot of course be regarded as
an unadulterated historical source ; in spite of the almost unfeminine
coldness of their tone, they are even more strongly biassed than is
ordinarily the case with this class of writings. Facts and events are
generally correctly narrated, but the opinions expressed are for the most
part coloured by partisan feeling. Perhaps Catharine was calculating
the effect on her son Paul and his wife; but, be that as it may, her
tendency is to represent her marriage with Peter and her whole position
as a martyrdom which at last became unbearable^ and so to render the
cmip d^itat intrinsically intelligible ftnd justifiable.
No unreserved use can therefore be made of this source in any
1744-59] Married life of Peter and Catharine. 659
attempt to draw the character of the Prince to whom in 1744 the
Princess of Anhalt was wedded. Peter was by no means half-witted,
but had been very badly brought up, miseducated, and even physically
neglected. In St Petersburg, too, all efforts to develop his powers
were in vain; in the words of Solowjeff, "he displayed every symptom
of mental backwardness; and resembled a groiwn-up child." He in-
dulged without restraint in childish pastimes, yielded to common and
low propensities, and was both mentally and morally of an inferior type.
Moreover, he neither could nor would adapt himself to Russian ways and
to the special circumstances of his position as Tsarevich. He remained
a Lutheran at heart, and ridiculed the Orthodox faith and its usages.
Even as a future Tsar he retained his pride in his rank as a German
Prince and a lasting passionate and personal devotion to Frederick the
Great, whose interests he served against those of his adopted country.
In every respect he did precisely what he ought not to have done in his
position, especially when the throne was so insecure.
After, at the end of August, 1745, he had married the Princess
Sophia, the contrast between husband and wife was from the very outset
made evident by the rapidity with which the Princess accommodated
herself to her difBcult position, though she was certainly, not assisted in
the matter by her tactless, intriguing mother. With an insight and
-judgment remarkable in one so young, she immediately^ perceived the
course she must pursue to win her way in Russia:, she must learn the
language and adopt the Orthodox faith. Princess Sophia became the
Grand Duchess Katharina Alexeievna. She had no longer, any home in
Germany nor any connexion with it, after her mother had been obliged
to leave Russia and her father had died (March, 1747).
There was no question of an intimate relation with her husband,
though she would have been prepared for it. He neglected her, absorbed
in amusing himself with his soldiers, in carousals and amours, and
making it clearer every day how ill-fitted he was to become the ruler of
the Russian empire. Catharine's early years as Tsarevna were a lonely
time for her, and she was jealously watched and guarded. Nevertheless,
she lost neither her force and elasticity of mind nor her cheerfulness of
disposition.' Like Peter I, she was her own teacher; but he learnt practi-
cally, whereas she had to educate herself theoretically. She read a great
deal, passing from novels to Voltaire, Bayle, Montesquieu, and then to
the Annals of Tacitus and the early volumes of the Encyclopidie. Her
reading developed that political sense which was so characteristic of
her; she became imbued with ideas of enlightened absolutism, and her
intellectual labours may be to some extent compared with those by
which Frederick the Great as Crown Prince trained himself for the duties
of King. During the years thus spent in serious work, as she recognised
what manner of ruler her husband would make, she became at heart a
Pretender by his side. In the outside world she deliberately sought
CH, XIX. 42 — 2
660 Alienation of Peter from Catharine. [i758-6i
popularity ; she had to act a part and acted it consciously,' calculating
the while, mistress of herself.
But in the heavy atmosphere of the Russian Court there awoke in
her at the same time a craving for the joys of life, hitherto latent
within her passionate soul and vigOTOtas nature. She had no family life
with her husband ; and her first child, Paul, had been taken from her by
Elizabeth, delighted by the advent of an heir to the throne. After brief
love passages with others, in 1759 the first favourite proper, Gregori
OrlofFj came on the scene. Husband and wife drifted further apart,
and the " young Court " presented a sorry picture of discord.
But, politically also, Peter and Catharine belonged to opposite sides.
The ambition which animated Catharine taught her that for her own
sake she must be a Russian or at any rate appear such outwardly.
Peter, on the other hand, seems to havei set his Holstein interests before
those of the Russian imperial Crown, not realising that it was precisely
in the identification of himself with national aims thdt lay his one and
only chance of the succession-^and even so it was a very uncertain chance.
Thus he was constantly outraging public feeling, and entered into the
maze of politics without either thought or capacity, while Catharine
assumed her part sagaciously and as one acting with mature and
conscious judgment. It was soon evident that their ways could not lie
together. Both were kept under close and constant supervision ; Eliza-
beth's relations with Catharine were singularly lacking in confidence and
kindness. The attention of high officers of State and foreign diplomats
was claimed increasingly by the Grand Duchess as the Empress grew older,
and as Peter's conduct strengthened the conviction that he would not
reign for long. For ten years Catharine had stood alone at Court; now
the several parties were drawing round her. Bestuzhefl', hitherto her
enemy, provided her ambition with a definite political aim, namely, the
exclusion of Peter from the throne and her own regency during the
minority of her son Paul. Catharine availed herself, too, of her credit
with the English ambassador. There were two parties at Court whose
object was to set aside Peter, and she had entered into secret relations
with both, when she was brought into serious danger by the fall of
Bestuzhefi^ in February, 1 758, already described elsewhere. But Bestuzheff
had burnt all compromising correspondence, and Catharine escaped a
great peril ; in a dramatic scene she quieted the suspicions of the
Empress, whose confidence was, however, forfeited by Bestuzheff.
Though Elizabeth was obliged to acknowledge openly that her
nephew would not be competent to reign for any length of time, she did
not alter the succession. For Catharine, too, the situation was becoming
more critical, as it was anticipated that, on his accession, Peter would
divorce her, pronounce Paul a bastard, and marry his mistress, Elizabeth
Vorontsofi: Moreover, another claimant to the throne was still living in
the person of Ivan Antonovich, imprisoned at Schliisselburg. Thus it
1V62] Peter III as Emperor. 661
was altogether uncertain who would succeed, should Elizabeth die
suddenly. Shortly before that event Princess Catharine DashkofF, a
sister of Elizabeth VorontsofF, implored the Grand Duchess, of whom she
was an enthusiastic partisan, to end the suspense by taking an extreme
step — the purport of which was obvious. But Catharine refused, being
apparently persuaded that there was no help for it if Peter meant to
get rid of her. Hence, when Elizabeth died on January 6, 1762, his
accession followed without any hindrance.
Peter III was now in a position to give practical expression to his
veneration for Frederick the Great, and took immediate advantage of
it by making peace with him, giving back all conquered territories, and
freeing Prussia from the almost overwhelming pressure brought to bear
on her by the coalition between Russia, Austria, and France. This was
not in itself contrary to the interests of Russia. But the sudden change
of front was regarded as an ignoble surrender of what had been won and
a capitulation to the "mortal enemy"; and this charge was (accord-
ing to one version at any rate) subsequently brought against Peter in
the manifesto of July 9, 1762. Most other measures taken by him
were of a similar nature and contributed to his ruin. His efforts at
reform, for the most part well-meant, included the abolition of torture
and capital punishment (the latter at all events for the nobility) — while
the exemption of that Order from the obligation of service to the State
was not justifiable and incited the peasants to revolt — and the seculari-
sation of ecclesiastical property. But Peter's wild zeal for reform set
everyone against him, as too many interests were threatened at once.
Again, his endeavour to reduce the Guards to discipline by means of
Prussian drill was well-intentioned. But, mainly because of the petty
way in which it was introduced, this innovation roused against him the
Guards and their officers, who were precisely the one element able to
carry out a revolution effectively. Things grew still more serious as
the Emperor became more and more possessed by the idea of engaging
in war with Denmark for the sake of Schleswig — a. war which must
naturally find very little favour with the Guards and among the
populace., He continued to wound Russian susceptibilities on all sides
just as he had done when Tsarevich ; and the increasing dissoluteness of
his life rendered him more and more unfitted to rule, while he treated
his wife with more brutality and ignominy than ever. Catharine bore
every insult with perfect self-control, her immediate object being that
the Russians should come to see in her the means of delivering them
from the present tyranny and maladministration. The more imminent
the danger became that Peter would drive her from the throne into a
convent or Schliisselburg, so as to be enabled to marry his mistress,
the more assiduously Catharine added mesh to mesh in the net of con-
spiracy which finally brought about his downfall. All who desired a
change thronged to her side; but she was astute enough to keep the
6i62 Murder of Peter III. [i762
several contributory currents distinct frcfm each other, and to retain in her
own hands the management of the whole. The several factions which
were helping her — ^the Orloffs, Princess Dashkoff, Panin — at various
times ascribed to themselves the leading part in the entire affair. As a
matter of fact, Catharine alone directed its course, and her strongest
allies were the bi'others Orloff. Gregori Orloff, her passionately devoted
lover, won over his brothers, first and foremost the sharp-witted Alexei ;
they in turn won over to the cause other officers and soldiers of the
Guards, among whom there was enough hatred of the Tsar. Princess
Dashicoff, in her Memoirs, attributes to herself a larger part in the
revolution than she actually played ; but she enlisted supporters among
the aristocracy, in particular Nikita Panin, Paul's tutor.
From afar, Frederick the Great perceived that his satellite, the Tsar,
would not long hold his own, and Peter was not left without admonitions
from that quarter. Lulled, however, by a false sense of security he failed
to notice how isolated his position was becoming, and how the tide had
turned in the Tsarina's favour. The sword of divorce still hung over
her ; and, at the beginning of July, 1762, the catastrophe seemed on the
point of overtaking her. Thus it came to pass that, on her side, the
conspiracy broke out by which shejsaved herself and Russia; and, though
the moment for action came sooner than had been expected, the several
agencies ended by cooperating most successfully, little as they knew of
each other's movements. Peter fell, and he alone; and an otherwise
bloodless revolution, accomplished with the utmost ea;se, reached its
terrible climax in the murder of the Tsar.
By a mere chance one of the accessories to the plot was arrested.
The conspirators at once took decisive action, although nothing was
prepared. In hot hastej Alexei Orloff' fetched the Tsarina from Peterhof
into the city of St Petersburg, on the night of July 8-^9. Early in the
morning of the 9th, she drove to the bairacks of the Guards; who
immediately swore allegiance to her. Then, in the Kasan cathedral,
whither Panin had meanwhile taken the Tsarevich Paul, Catharine was
proclaimed Autocrat. From the Winter Palace she issued a manifesto
informing the people of the step. Peter had been dethroned, practically
without opposition.
On the evening of the same day, the Guards marched from St Peters-
burg to Peterhof, where Peter had remained ; what had been begun must
be carried through. Catharine headed the march in person, wearing
the uniform of the Guards and accompanied by a splendid suite. The
brilliant personal qualities of this amazing woman were most strikingly
evinced on this occasion and held everyone as it were spell-bound;
political action was undistinguishable' from romantic masquerade. Peter
was perfectly helpliess, and surrendered unconditionally; he agreed to
the declaration of abdication sent him and was taken as a prisoner to
the country seat of Ropscha. The milita/ry revolt against the reigning
1725-62] Catharine II assumes the government. 663
Tsar bad triumphed speedily and without bloodshed; as in 1741, it had
been effected by the Guards, who had no intention of going to war on
behalf of a foreign princess, and she succeeded in giving a national
Russian significance to the enterprise. Disorderly and undisciplined
behaviour on the part of the soldiery, which made the danger attaching
to these revolts abundantly evident, was quickly put down by the firmness
of Catharine and those around her. But a dark shadow was cast on the
whole transaction, which had been so easy of accomplishment, by the
murder of Peter at Ropscha on July 17. Catharine did not give the
order for this deed; but the guilt of it nevertheless lies at her door.
Alexei Orloff and several others were the actual perpetrators of the
murder; but he would not have ventured so far unless he had been
certain that Catharine would breathe more freely if this still dangerous
rival were disposed of, and that they were carrying out Catharine's own
secret wish. And Orloff's deed went unpunished.
Catharine had taken the lead in the revolution, and was now Auto-
crat of the Russias. For there was no question of her merely holding
the regency during the minority of her son, as Panin had desired. She
seized the reins in her own hands and held them till her death. Her
innate fitness for personal rule was at once made manifest ; with impres-
sive calmness and self-control she at once commanded the situation ; the
kindly, grateful side of her character was seen in the nature of the
rewards bestowed by her ; and, from the very outset, she revealed that
mental superiority, energy, and, above all, that mastery of the art of
government, which make her reign appear truly great.
In the early years, Catharine's advisers as to foreign affairs were Panin
and, to a less extent, Bestuzheff, who had been recalled. She did not,
as was naturally expected, reverse Peter's sudden change of policy in
regard to Prussia; she did not return unconditionally to Austria; for she
was of opinion that Russia required peace, followed by a foreign policy
independent of any foreign Power and calculated to serve no interests
but her own. From 1725 to 1762, the influence of other Powers
upon Russia had been continually on the increase ; after 1762, Russia
once more became an independent State. During the eighteen yeiars
of her life as Grand Duchess, Catharine had herself awakened and
cultivated the natural gifts which she possessed ; and now, as Tsarina,
she boldly proceeded to deal with a problem which Peter I had left
behind him and which had since been neglected, and worked out a
solution of it in which the other Powers were obliged to concur, This
problem was the Polish question.
After the revolution of 1762 the first problem which Catharine had
to face was the attitude to be adopted towards Prussia. The Treaty
of Hubertusburg, which terminated the Seven Years' War, was con-
cluded without the participation of Russia, whose proffered mediation
en. SIX.
664 The Polish question. [i662-i780
Frederick had firmly refused. But only a year afterwards this neutral
attitude towards Prussia had developed into an alliance which lasted till
1780. Catharine and Frederick recognised each other's intellectqal
calibre; in th^ pleasing personal correspondence carried on between:
them one can detect beneath all the courtly verbiage the conversation
of two great personalities mutually congenial-^that is to say, in their
political capacity. It is a purely political correspondence, carried on for
definite political ends by two writers gifted with esprit. Each delighted,
and vied with the other in manipulating with the utmost possible
virtuosity the ingeniously graceful forms of the eighteenth century.
What brought Frederick and Catharine together, and kept them
together, in the first instance, for a decade and a half, consisted of very
real political interests — in fact, of the community of interests between
them in the matter of the kingdom of Poland.
Poland was drifting towards a doom, which had, even in this very
form, been long since predicted^ For the idea of a partition of
Poland between the adjacent Powers did not originate with Catharine,
Frederick, or Joseph II. It had been in the air earlier than that;
Charles X Gustavus of Sweden had spoken of it to the Great Elector of
Brandenburg ; and, so early as 1662, John Casimir of Poland had actually
foretold the details of the, process: the Lithuanians were mostly in
favour of the Muscovite; and after his death it could hardly be but
that the latter would keep Lithuania, while the Emperor would get
possession of, Poland (i.e. Little Poland), in which case the Elector of
Brandenburg might get a slice of Great Poland. The partition
of Poland thus predicted, of which Catharine II must be considered
the real author, must be differently judged from different points of
view. The Poles anathematise it because it deprived them of their
independent existence as a nation. The Cabinets of the Powers concerned
have endeavoured to exonerate themselves from the blame of, at any
rate, the initial step. Contemporaries, however, regarded Poland as
a centre of religious intolerance and aristocratic tyranny, and they
welcomed Catharine's action; Voltaire wrote in commendation of it,
when she sent troops into Poland. But the root of the matter was that,
since Brandenburg and Moscow had come to the fore, only a strong State
could hold its ground between these two Powers. Poland was not a
strong State, if State she could be called at all — and so she was
overwhelmed. Out of this policy of the Eastern Powers, initiated
by Catharine, arose the Polish question, which became an important
political problem of the nineteenth century. The action of the
Powers might obliterate the Polish kingdom, but it could not wipe
out the Polish nation.
For va,rious reasons, external and internal, which cannot be discussed
here, Poland, though a powerful political community at the beginning
of her history, had never become an actual State. The difficulty of
1572-1763], Antecedents of the Polish question. — Courland. 665
building up a State was in this case enhanced by the fact that to the east
and west Poland was practically without natural frontiers, while to the
north and south such could not be acquired by the natural expansion
of the nation, but must be won by conquest and subjugation of foreign
races. The kingdom of Poland thus expended a great deal of strength
on the struggle against the Turks in liie south and south-east, thereby
serving its own special purposes and a common European interest at the
same time. But at home, instead of going through those stages in the
development of political life which we denote by the terms mercantilism
and absolutism, Poland came to a standstill at a lower stage, and her
institutions were developed on that level and in a direction detrimental
to the monarchy. King and Constitution succumbed to the idea of
a Confederation, which Moltke aptly defined as the " legal organisation
of revolution." By means of the Confederation, by the pacta conventa
imposed by the nobility on the elective monarchy, and by their position
in the central Diet {Sejrn) and in the provincial Diets {Sejmiki), the nobles
managed to prevent the several pijoyjnces from becoming welded together
into a corporate whole and to identify the State with their own Order.
Their interests alone were considered ; no strong middle class arose ; and
the pressure on the peasants left them no longer capable of revolt, and
at the same time devoid of all patriotic feeling. While the economic
and political interests of the nobility were thus paramount, the security
and independence of the nation had not been duly vindicated as towards
other Powers., When the Powers concerned in the affairs of eastern
Europe interfered more and more freely in Polish politics, there was no
possibility either of resistance or of independence. By means of political
and military pressure and of bribery, to which all classes of the nobility
were susceptible, these Powers managed to influence the election of the
King, so that after 1572 very few candidates who were not foreigners
ascended the throne. The foreign Powers in question were : Austria,
Fra,nce, the Papacy, Sweden ; subsequently, Brandenburg, Saxony ; and,
finally, Russia. ITie weakest of these. Saxony, had come into possession
of the Polish throne, which from 1697 till 1763 had been held by
Augustus the Strong and Augustus III. The rule of the la,tter had,
however, been no rule at all. Belligerents had infringed on Polish
territory with impunity. In the duchy of Courland, a fief 6f the Polish
Crown, Russian influence established itself when, in 1737, Biren, the
favourite of the Tsarina Anne, became Duke after the death of the last
Duke of the House of Kettler. Poland herself had taken no part in the
Seven Years' War; but she had had to submit to being utilised by Russia
as a military base, while Frederick levied contributions and recruited
soldiers on Polish soil. Poland was at Catharine's mercy when she
ascended the throne and aggressively resumed the policy of expansion
westwards, which Peter had actually begun, but of which the origin is
really to be sought in the course which Muscovite history had for
666 The Polish crisis on the death of Augustus III. [1758-95
centuries followed. The turn of Courland came first ; in 1763 Biren was
restored, and the son of Augustus III of Poland was ousted from the
dukedom which he had obtained in 1758. The fate of Courland was
thus sealed, and the consummation made possible which in 1795 con-
verted this Polish dependency into a Russian province. Henceforth,
Russian influence was firmly established in Covu-land, a country of vital
importance for the position of Russia on the Baltic coast, and contain-
ing the river Duna and the ports of Libau and Windau. Poland legally
retained the overlordship ; but as a matter of fact it had passed to
Catharine, whose foreign policy thus achieved its first great success.
But the real Polish question, as Catharine and Frederick fully recog-
nised, would be set in motion on the death of Augustus III. This
event took place in October, 1763. Neither of the two sovereigns wished
an Austrian Prince to succeed Augustus ; Frederifck was, on the whole,
in favour of a Piast, i.e. a native Polish King ; but Catharine was deter-
mined to utilise the election of the King for her own purpose in reigard
to Poland ; the time had not yet come for the incorporation of Poland
or part of it, but, at least, the influence of Russia should predominate in
Warsaw, Her candidate for the throne was to serve this interest, and
she had one ready to hand in Stanislaus Pbniatowski. He had had
a passing personal intimacy with Catharine, but was now to be ruthlessly
employed as an instrument of her purposes. To ensure his election, she
took advantage of the diiferences among the Polish nobility. For the
nobles no longer formed a homogeneous body, even though the demo-
cratic equality supposed to exist within their circle was still marked
with a ludicrous emphasis. The nobility was divided into the Szlachta,
or lesser nobility, and a group of about one hundred families of grandees,
among which sixteen or seventeen held a leading position. This sniall
circle represented a brilliant aristocracy, possessed of the culture and
manners of western Europe- — that is to say, France. Around them were
grouped in solid factions the dependent families of the Szlachta, which
was again divided into a middle and an inferior stratum, the la|:ter
often of the poorest sort. The public life of Poland still consisted
solely in the rivalry of these factions, following the selfish lead of the
most influential families of grandees. Some patriotic ideas were still to
be found, but they were always rendered ineffective by the prevailing
selfishness, absence of all discipline, and habit of looking to foreign
countries for assistance, financial and other. The most important
family, called "the family" par excellence, were, as has been seen, the
Czartoryskis, whose aim was actually to win the throne for their House.
They formed the nucleus of the Russian party and favoured the election
of Stanislaus Poniatowslfi, himself a member of their family.
Frederick and Catharine had a common interest, in the first instance,
in the continuance of the present anarchy in Polaijd,, since a strong well-
regulated Polish State was contrary to the tendencies at work in their
1764] Russia secures the election of Stanislaus Poniatowski. 667
own monarchies. They afccordingly insisted that "free" election, the
liberwn veto, and all the pomp of the Diet, should be kept up. Further-
more, however, a pretext was afforded them in the question of the
"Dissidents," or "Dysunits," as the Polish Dissenters (Protestants and
Greek Orthodox Catholics) were termed. Their position afforded
Catharine a welcome opportunity of coming forward as the protectress
of religious toleration for the Orthodox in Poland, while at the same
time it increased her influence and facilitated an interference on her part,
analogous to that which she had asserted on behalf of the Christians
of the Balkans under Turkish rule. She proceeded resolutely, setting
her diplomats, Kayserling and Repnin, to work in Warsaw, distributing
money, and sending troops into Poland ; she also concluded the alliance
of 1764 with Frederick the Great, engaging him to move troops to the
Polish frontier. She thus secured her end ; and, on September 7, 1764,
Stanislaus Poniatowski was elected King — ^as Catharine herself afterwards
very truly remarked, " the candidate who had least right of all and
must therefore feel more indebted to Russia than anyone else." This
first election of a Polish King " made " by Russia was the second success
of her foreign policy, the elections having been hitherto determined by
Austria, France, and Brandenburg ; and it might logically be expected
that fortune would favour Russia stiU further.
Once safely on the throne, Stanislaus attempted to initiate reforms.
He subinitted a proposal to the Diet abolishing the liberum veto, at any
rate in matters of finance ; while the Czartoryskis had already brought
forward schemes of reform at the " Diet of Convocation," But Russian
and Prussian interests clashed with any honest effort to consolidate the
State by means of reforms : and Stanislaus had to recognise in despair
that it was now too late for any reform in Poland which should tend to
strengthen the power of the Crown. Repnin, Catharine's ambassador
at Warsaw, was inslructed to prevent any alteration in the existing
form of government. The fundamental evil lay in the liberum vetOj
which required unanimity in all resolutions ; but the policy of Russia
and Prussia required that this should be preserved as precluding the
Diet from passing any constructive measures. Anarchy was still
further increased under the pretext of protecting the Dissidents, for
whom Russia claimed equal political rights with the Roman Catholics.
When the King, backed by the Czartoryskis, refused to grant this
demand, Repnin, availing himself of the feeling in the Szlachta against
the supposed absolutist tendencies of the King, contrived the Confede-
ration of Radom, in support of which Russian troops came on the scene.
From 1767 to 1768 the Diet sat at Warsaw surrounded by Russian
soldiers, and under this pressure consented to the removal of the regula-
tions against' members of other creeds, and to a compact by which Russia
guaranteed the integrity of Poland and the maintenance of her Consti-
tution. Catharine seemed already to be mistress of Poland; but she
OH. XIX.
6.68 Intermixture of the Polish and 2\rkish questions. [i767-7(>
had bent the bow too far. Two days after the Diet had risen, was
formed the Confederation of Bar (in Podolia) "pro religione et libertate^\
i.e. against all concessions to the Dissidents, absolutist reforms in the
State, and any guarantee by Russia of the Polish Constitution. A
terrible local war began between Russians and Confederates. The Con-
federation obtained; the support of France, which sent money and officers,
and of Austria. For some time, as has been seen, these two Powers had
been agitating against Russia and Prussia in Constantinople ; and now
rkey intervened on behalf of Poland and declared war against Russia
(September, 1767). The Polish and Eastern questions, were thus com-
bined. It was a fatal step for Poland to have asked and received help
from Turkey, thus abandoning her old historic hostility against the
Porte, and committing an act of virtual self-surrender. For the amalga-
mation of the Polish and Eastern questions gave rise to an international
tension which nothing short of the first partition of Poland could bring
VJp a close, unless it were to find vent in a great European war.
In her ensuing war with Turkey, Catharine was successful, as wiU be
related below. The conflicts of the Confederation, on the other hand^
in which everyone operated on his own account, ended disastrously.
Austria watched with growing resentment the triumphs of Russian arms^
which threatened to annex the Danubian Principalities ; and if, as seemed
likely, a war broke out between Austria and Russia, Prussia, which was the
ally of Russia and was already subsidising her, would be drawn into
hostilities, which Frederick desired to avoid. Accordingly, as has been
narrated elisewhere, he met Austria's advances by the interviews with
Joseph II at Neisse and Neustadt, and sought to induce Catharine to
relinquish her designs on the Crimea and the Danubian Principalities.
With war on her hands against Turkey and against the Confederation
of Bar, while Austria was assuming a threatemng attitude, Catharine
had to try at all costs to retain Prussia on her side. In order to impart
a more personal note to her relations with Prussia, she therefore, so
early as July 30, 1770, invited Prince Henry, Frederick's brother, who
was then staying at Stockholm with his sister the Queen of Sweden, to
pay a visit to St Petersburg. Unexpected as was the invitation. Prince
Henry accepted it, and spent several months in the Russian capital. It
was at one of the Tsarina's soiries that the question of the partition of
Poland was first broached to the Prussian Prince on the part of Russia.
At the Russian Court there had hitherto been two conflicting
opinions in regard to the fate of Poland, and as to how it could best be
made to serve the interests of Russia. One view, advocated by Count
Nikita Panin, the Foireign Minister, was in favour of Poland being
brought into increasing dependence on Russia by continuous interference
in her internal affairs, without any curtailment of her territory. The
other view, advocated in particular by' the War Minister, Count Zachary
Chemuisbefi^, favoured the annexation of Poland. Nowj in the summer
1770-2] First Partition of Poland. 669
— — — ^ j
of 1770, Austria had furnished a precedent for this course by the
occupation of the Zips, to which she alleged herself to possess ancient
rights. On the evening of January 8^ 1771, Count Chemuisheff observed
to Prince Henry on this subject: "Then, why not seize the bishopric of
Ermeland? for, after all, everyone ought to have something"; and
Catharine asked the Prince "And why should not everybody help
himself likewise^ ? " The first hint as to the partition of Poland was
conveyed in this conversation, which, quite in Catharine's way, touched
seriously, though in a seemingly light and even jesting tone, on an
important topic. The strongest argument in favour of such a line of j
action on the part of Russia was that, if she relinquished her schemes of j
extension along the lower Danube, which might compromise her with
Austria and cost her the Prussian alliance, she ought to seek a com- j
pensation in Poland. Panin put this quite plainly to the Prussian — J
ambassador, and King Frederick concurred. But Austria hereupon, ih
her turn, insisted on remaining in possession of those parts of Poland
which she had appropriated; and Prussia's actual political position
enabled her to demand something beyond Ermeland, viz., the German
districts of Poland separating it from East Prussia. At the close of
1771, Catharine made a binding declaration to Frederick that she would
give up the Danubian Principalities ; and hereupon they struck a bargain
about Poland. On February 17, 1772, the Russo-Prussian Treaty of
Partition was signed at St Petersburg, and on August 5 Austria joined
in this compact. Maria Theresa naturally had much more difficiity in
taking part in this transaction, whidi was not essential to Austria from
a poKtico-geographical point of view. Her son Joseph^ in his eagerness
for annexations, of course-foiled-io see how the occupation of the Zips
sufficed to involve Austria in all the consequences' of this Polish policy,
and how her share of Poland would only encumbei- her with tefritoiy
which it was not to her interest to possess, and which did away with
the former security of her north-eastern frontier.
The First Partition of Poland (August 5, 1772) deprived that country
of about one-third of its territory and almost a third of its popula-
tion. Prussia acquired Ermeland and what was called Royal Prussia
(the West Prussia of the present day) with the exception of Danzig and
Thorn. Austria obtained part of Little Poland (excepting Cracow) and
the greater part of East Galicia, then called Red Russia. To Russia fell
the strip of Livonia which had remained a Polish possession, with White
Russia along the Duna and the Dnieper (the districts of Polozk, Vitebsk,
Minsk, and Mstislavl). Whereas there was no historical justification for
the extension of Austria, Prussia and Russia by the First Partition
of Poland only took territories to which they could assert well-founded
claims. For Polish Prussia had formerly been under German rule,
1 " Mais pourquoi pas s'erfiparer de I'ev^chi de Warmie? Oar ilfaut,aprh tout, que,
ehacun ait quelque chose," "Mais pourqudi pas tout le monde se prendrait-il dussi ! "'
CB. XIX,
670 Eesponsibility for the First Partition. — Its results. [1772
and the districts taken by Russia were inhabited by Russian-speaking
Greek Catholics. Catharine always maintained that she had taken no
genuine Polish country; and there was some foundation for this statement,
even when she repeated it after the Third Partition, The acquisition of
White Russia, with, its rigidly Russian and Orthodox population, even
wore the appearance of a national act of liberation, though in point of
fact it was nothing of the kind.
Catharine did not bring about the situation leading i;o thp Partition
of Poland which was really the beginning of its end ; but she availed
herself of that situation lyith so much skill and energy, that her action
was designated as a masterpiece of political finesse, iby so experienced
a statesman as Kaunitz. But the fact that the situation was not of
her making had the further consequence that the whole of Poland did
not fall into her h&ilds, which was the final goal towards which the
expansion of Russia might be and actually was directed. The Tsarina
was on the horns of a dilemma: the ma,intenance of Polish integrity
might in the end bring Poland under Russian influence, but Austria had
already violated it. Unless Prussia stood firmly by her alliance with
Russia, Austria would probably take up arms in favour of Turkey, while
on the other hand any acquisition of Polish territory by Prussia would
arouse the jealousy of Austria against that Power. Frederick the Great
in his Memoirs correctly judged that the violation of the integrity of
Poland was suddenly made to serve as an expedient for avoiding a gr'eat
European war. Under the: influence of his brother Henry, he thereupon
adopted the suggestion emanating from St Petersburg, adroitly availing
himself of it to eflect a much-needed enlargement of his borders. By
the occupation of the Zips Austria had made the first move, and it was
therefore she who, as Frederick says, "did most to pave the way "for
the Partition Treaty, But it was the fault of Poland herself that her
own state organisation had been too weak to oflfer any resistance to the
long-cherished aspirations of her two neighbours when these crystallised
into action ; and it was her fault, again, that her own ruling class, the
nobility, itself helped to assure the success of this foreign encroachment.
Poland was not annihilated by the First Partition. Of course it was
the death-blow to the conception of a Greater Poland "from sea to sea,"
i.e. from the Baltic to the Black Sea; this, however, was no true national
ideal, but a mere scheme of aggression against peoples of diflerent race.
Nor can Poland, after 1772, be said to have been anything more than a
Russian tributary State under the rule of the Russian ambassador at
Warsaw, and in the hold of the Russian garrisons distributed throughout
the country. But, even so, the nucleus of the State remained; and
Poland might stiU have a future before her if she resolved on a reform of
her home affairs. And such a reform was actually attempted with some
show of zeal, while the part of the country which had fallen to Russia
was energetically and judiciously brought into line with the Russian
1773-88] Reforms under Stanislaus. 671
civil and ecclesiastical system by its Governor-General, Count Zachary
Chernuisheff, in most of whose ideas and plans Catharine concurred.
The Partition by the. three Powers was ratified by what was called
the « Delegation Diet," which lasted from 1773 to 1775. Thus Poland
was brought by persuasion, compulsion, and bribery to consent to the
loss of one-third of her territory without striking a blow — a national
surrendei: scarcely paralleled in history. The same Diet, however, at
once adopted measures of reform and "cardinal rights," as they were
termed, whichj however, left untouched the weakest points in the Con-
stitution, such as the election of the King and the liberum veto. The
most important reforms were, first, the establishment of a " perpetual
Council of State " {Rada nieustc0qca), under the presidency of the King,
in which the executive power was vested when the Diet was not sitting,
and, secondly, the appointment of an Education Commission endowed
with the wealth of the expelled Order of Jesuits, which was to reform
public instruction. These two bodies were the first central authorities
exercising jurisdiction over Lithuania as well as Poland — for, by the
Union of Lublin (1569), Lithuania had retained its separate administra-
tion, finances, and army. Though the Education Commission in particular
did zealous and eiFective work for public instruction, no really far-
reaching reforms were achieved till 1788, owing to the continuance of
the intrigues and personal antagonisms and ambitions of the several
factions. And the reforms planned by the King and his adherents
were likewise crippled by the fact that the "cardinal rights" were
under the guarantee of the partitioning Powers, which had no interest
in any real reform -and internal consolidation of Poland. It should
be noted how the ide^ts of the Ayflddrung gradually penetrated into
the Polish world, in particular through the writings of Staszic and
Koltg,taj, and prepared the way for still more widespread reforms —
for example, the emancipation of the peasants. Altogether, these last
years of the kingdom of Poland were a period of intellectual activity.
Stanislaus loved and promoted art and literature ; and many poets and
writers, such as Krasicki, Naruszewicz, Niemcewicz and the two mentioned
above, shed a glory as of sunset on the last years of the doomed
country. Politically, Poland stood alone throughout the years which
included the dissolution of the Russo-Prussian, and the formation of
the Russo-Austrian, alliance. In 1787, Russia, conjointly with Austria,
began her second Turkish War, and the question arose : which side would
Poland take ? Stanislaus inclined towards that of Russia, though there
was little hope that she would concede anything in the matter of reforms,
and much less that she would consent to the strengthening of the Polish
army. Although desirous of getting possession of Danzig and Thorn,
Prussia, being now hostile to Russia, had no objection to reforms in
Poland, and she therefore proposed to Poland an alliance on these lines,
which was negotiated by the Diet opened on October 6, 1788. TTiis
672 Historic antagonism between Russia and Turkey. [1737-95
famous "Four Years' Diet" began the last period of Polish independence,
and accomplished reforms culminating in the Constitution of May 3,
1791. But no time was left for Poland to show whether she was
capable of carrying through an organic change in the conditions of her
public and social life. It is told elsewhere, how, in 1793 and 1795,
Catharine completed what she had begun in 1772, and Poland fell out
of the ranks of independent States. The Tsarina had taken skilful and
Onscrupulous advantage of the impotence and internal decay of Poland,
and, though obliged to share the spoils with Prussia and Austria,
contrived that the histoi-ic struggle carried on for centuries with Poland
should end triumphantly for Russia. The Russian frontier was thus
pushed forward into central Europe, while the position of the empire op
the Baltic was at the same time brought into connexion with that which
it held in regard to the Eastern question.
The antagonism between Russia and Turkey ' was, and remains to
this day, partially due to- the fact that the Turks are the successors of
the Tartars. This antagonism is deep-rooted and quite exceptionally
widespread among the Russians, and explains the sympathy inspired in
them by an enduring sense of community of race and faith for the
Christian subjects of Turkey. , Furthermore, the actual situation of
Turkey had prevented Russia from obtaining a natural frontier and
sea-board in the south, and her European expansion in the south-west.
Throughout the course of centuries this antagonism continued closely
interwoven with that between Moscow and Poland. . Peter I sought to
dispose of this menace to Russian development by endeavouring, first of
all, to turn the national and religious sympathies of the Balkan peninsula
to Russia's account as against Turkey. This plan, as we know, failed
absolutely. The Tsarina Anne then continued his projects in alliance
with Austria. Their direct political objects are stated in an instruction
of 1787: namely, incorporation of the region of the south Russian
steppe, the conquest of the Crimea, the' left bank of the Danube
as Russia's southern frontier, the liberation of the two Danubian
Principalities (Moldavia and Wallachia), in which of course Russian
influence was henceforth to predominate. This programme once realised,
Tm-key would cease to be a dangerous enemy to Russia, which could then
aim at putting , an end ' to the very existence of a Turkey in Europe,
and substituting for it any other sort of States — provided always that
they were dependent on Russia, or, better still, under her direct rule.
Catharine had in the main carried but the earlier programme; this
later scheme she was unable to accomplish, but left as an inheritance
to her successors. Antagonism to Turkey in Asia was not overlooked
by her, but kept more in the background. Though in this quarter
also she achieved successes towards the end of her life^-such as, for
instance, the establishment of a protectorate over Georgia (1783) and
the war with Persia — their sigiiificance was merely incidental to her
1768-70] First Russo-Turkish War. 673
Eastern policy : for the European side of the question was paramount.
In this respect her reign brought about the important and lasting result
that no solution of the question was conceivable either without Russia,
or through Russia alone.
It has already been stated how Russia's first Turkish War (1768-74)
was consequent upon the struggle against the Confederation of Bar.
Catharine entered upon the War with confidence and courage, although
the odds were heavy against her. Her throne was still far from
secure; there were still internal crises to be overcome, and she had
France and Austria against her in the conflict with Poland and Turkey.
All this enhanced the importance of Prussian support. The Russian
equipment left much to be desired; in particular, the war department
and commissariat failed, as always in Russian wars. However, the Porte
was still worse prepared, so that Frederick the Great ridiculed the War
as a fight between the blind and the one-eyed. It proved a protracted
affair; especially as Catharine had no competent generals except Peter
Panin ; and in him she placed no implicit trust.
The invasion of New Servia by the Tartars at the beginning of 1769
pointed to the necessity of settling accounts with them once for all. But
this could only be accomplished if Russian territory were extended to the
shores of the Black Sea. Catharine's hopes, however, soared beyond this
— to naval operations on the waters of the Black Sea ; to securing a free
navigation of its waters; to the acquisition of the Caucasus; and, finally,
to rousing the Greeks to a revolt against the Turks. Thus the daring
expedition to the Black Sea which started from Kronstadt in 1770 was
pursuing the ultimate and most ambitious aims of this Eastern policy.
And, though no general rising of the Greeks took place, yet the expedi-
tion, which was commanded by Alexei Orloff, achieved the greatest naval
victory at any time won by Russia. On July 5 and 7, 1770, the Tiu-kish
fleet was defeated off Scio and absolutely annihilated off Tchesme —
a victory comparable with Lepanto and Navarino. The Russians owed
it rather to the admirals of English extraction (Greig and Elphinston)
who were commanding under Orloff, than to that officer himself, who
was comparatively ignorant of naval tactics. He reaped the greatest
honours, however, as Catharine wisely always saw fit to confer higher
rewards and more brilliant promotion on native Russians th^n on
foreigners, though the latter were for the most part more capable, and
were certainly indispensable when it came to gaining victories.
The land forcesj too, were successful : in 1770, Bender, Ismail, Kilia,
Akerman, Brailoff fell in succession, and, in the next year, Kerch,
Eupatoria, Perekop, with the whole Crimean peninsula, were occupied.
The other European Powers looked on with mingled feelings at these
successes of the Russian arms. England was little affected by them, but
was unwilling that Russia should secure the passage of the Bosphorus as a
result of this War. France was more strongly opposed to the advance of
C, M. H. VI. CH. XIX. 4<')
674 Treaty of Kutchuk-Kainarc0i. [1770-4
Russia ; and Prussia, which was paying subsidies to Russia, was by no
means pleased with the War in itself, and still less by Catharine's victories,
which threatened to drag Prussia into a conflict with Austria. In the
Peace of Belgrade in 1739, the Austrians had made away with the fair
prospects of their own Eastern policy, while at the same time destroying
the great and legitimate expectations of Russia ; and now it was they on
whom the Russian successes against the Porte pressed most heavily, and
whose Balkan schemes were threatened. The state of tension between the
Powers was fraught with possibilities of a European war ; but a solution
of the difficulty was found, as described above, by the First Partition of
Poland among the Eastern Powers.
Meanwhile, the Russo-Turkish War was progressing. The first peace
negotiations were abortive, and fresh Russian victories followed, the
Turk proving as usual a far more obdurate foe than had been anticipated.
Then, when PugachoiF's rising broke out at home in Russia, Catharine
concluded a peace, which, although it did not fulfil all her high hopes,
was nevertheless one of the most advantageous treaties ever made by
a Russian sovereign. By this Treaty of Kutchuk-Kainardji of July 21,
1774, Russia obtained AzofF, Kerch, and Yenikale, which meant the
control of the straits between the Sea of AzofF and the Black Sea, also
Kinburn at the mouth of the Dnieper, and the steppe beyond it lying
between the Bug and the Dnieper, The Treaty declared the inde-
pendence of the Crimean Tartars — ^the first step towards their subjection
to Russia, The Black Sea from which other nations were still excluded
was thrown open to Russia, and her merchantmen were allowed to pass
through the Bosphorus and the Dardanelles. Further, Great and Little
Kabardia, pArts, that is to say, of the Kuban and Terek district, became
Russian ; whereby a footing on the eastern shore of the Black Sea and
in the Caucasus was secured, involving of course conflict with the
Circassians. Articles 7 and 14, again, afibrded Russia a pretext — not
justified by the wording — for claiming protective rights over adherents
of the Greek Church living in Turkey and so interfering in the internal
affairs of that country. Henceforth, the Eastern policy of Russia could
be based on the popular conception of her as the natural protectress
of the Greek Christians. Thus, the Treaty of Kutchuk-Kainardji
abundantly rewarded the immense sacrifices made by Russia for the war.
But even so it was no final settlement of the vexed question. In the
first place, Catharine did not relinquish those more ambitious schemes
which, particularly after Potemkin's rise to favour, became almost reck-
less in their scope. She dreamed of breaking up Turkey in order to
form a new Greek empire, which was destined for her second grand-
son, significantly named Constantine, while Moldavia, Wallachia, and
Bessarabia were to constitute a kingdom of Dacia, to be ruled by an
Orthodox Prince — Potemkin to wit. These fantastic and prodigious plans
could only be realised by a yet greater war^ in which Austria must side
1783-7] Annexation of the Crimea. — Catharine's tour. 675
with Russia, for without the help of that Power, much less in opposition
to it, Catharine's projects were futile. Now, the longer Catharine pursued
this path, the further she drew away from Prussia and the nearer to
Austria, for Joseph IPs way of thinking met such notions half-way, even
if they savoured of extravagance. He was prepared to fall in with
Catharine's plans against Turkey, claiming for Austria by way of return
Servia, Bosnia, Herzegovina and Dalmatia, while Venice was to receive
the Morea, Candia, and Cyprus. So the eggs were carefully counted
before they were hatched. Meanwhile, Frederick II felt certain that, so
soon as there was any real question of a partition of Turkey, the interests
of Austria and Russia would clash, in particular as to the lower Danube.
There was no mention of the Crimea in Catharine's scheme, for it was
already regarded as the property of Russia, which it actually became in
1783, without any objection on the part of Joseph II. For this achieve-
ment Potemkin was decorated with the agnomen of " the Taurian," and
raised to the rank of a Prince of the Holy Roman Empire. He had,
however, performed no specially glorious feat. The internal discord
always seething among the Tartars had been turned to account, and the
subsequent annexation of their country had been accompanied by scenes
of ten'or and butchery, which must not of course be laid at Catharine's
door. She was pleased and elated by the conquest, declaring that she
had come to Russia empty-handed but had won Tauria and Poland as
her dowry. Now, at length, Russia had won a firm and sure southern
frontier and respite from the races which had formerly borne her down
by their numbers and had since constantly harassed her ; these had now
been brought beneath her sway or had migrated. The union of the
Crimea with Russia at last put an end to the trade carried on thence for
centuries in Russian slaves.
In France and Turkey, however, the annexation of the Crimea
aroused considerable misgivings, and war once more seemed imminent.
In face of this, Catharine contrived a singular demonstration, namely,
the famous Tauric journey begun in January, 1787. She was accom-
panied by the Emperor Joseph II, and by a brilliant suite which
included the Austrian, English, and French ambassadors. The expe-
dition was largely a pleasure party, producing by its magnificent and
often theatrical setting a perfectly incredible impression ; but it was also
a political move, intended to show off the wealth of Russia, the newly
acquired steppe, the southern beauty of the Crimea, the rapid development
of the recently founded towns, fortresses, and harbours. There was
certainly a good deal of staging about all this ; for Potemkin was, all
of a sudden, to appear in the light of a splendid organiser and ad-
ministrator, and there is justification for the proverbial use of the
expression "Potemkin's villages" to signify sham splendour. The
spectators, however, realised the significance of a naval port having
arisen at Sevastopol from which Constantinople could be reached in two
cH. XIX. 43 — 2
676 Austro-Bussianwarwith Turkey -TreatyofJoLSsy. [i783-94
days ; and it was felt far and near how vast a change the present Tsarina
had wrought in the position of Russia in the Eastern question.
For this very reason Catharine's journey only increased the existing
tension ; and in August, 1787, war with Turkey broke out afresh.
The immediate cause alleged by the Porte was the annexation of the
Crimea ; but it was further apprehended that the dependence of Georgia
(since, in 1783, its sovereign, li'akli, had put himself under Russian pro-
tection) would ultimately involve the' subjection of the whole Caucasus.
Joseph recognised a casus foederis for Austria as the ally of Russia;
and in February, 1788, he likewise declared war against Turkey, by
which means the two Powers thought to accomplish its projected
partition. Accordingly, a few years afterwards (1790), Prussia entered
into an alliance with the Porte, and then with Poland, so that Prussia
was henceforth opposed to Russia all along the line.
The year 1788 ended with a decisive victory for Russia in the capture
of Ochakoff. Once again, there was some idea of a naval expedition to
the Mediterranean to rouse the Greeks to insurrection. This renewed
advance of the Russians was already causing great excitement in Europe,
more especially in England. However, the fleet was not despatched, as
it was needed elsewhere, Gustavus III of Sweden having declared war.
Thus, despite her successes against Turkey, Catharine found herself in
a precarious position, which was further aggravated by the death of
Joseph and a change in the attitude of Austria. Thanks to her own
skill and energy, she was able to extricate herself by means of the
Treaty of Varala with Sweden (1790) and that of Jassy with Turkey
(January 9, 1792), thus avoiding the intervention of one of the European
Powers. The Treaty of Jassy confirmed that of Kutchuk-Kainardji :
the partition of Turkey had certainly not been effected, neither had the
Greek empire and the kingdom of Dacia come into being. But the
Dniester had become the boundary river of Russia, and the northern
shore of the Black Sea to the confines of the Caucasus was now Russian.
It remained for Catharine's successors to improve upon the position of
Russia in Asia and to pursue her plan of utilising against Turkey the
foothold afforded by the protectorship over the Greek Christians of that
country. Sevastopol and Odessa (founded in 1794) remained the out-
ward and visible signs of what Catharine had achieved in the East;
henceforth Turkey had no longer any terrors for Russia.
The nature and results of Catharine's foreign policy will now have
become sufficiently intelligible. Its gist was the consistent assertion
of the strength of Russia in the interests of Russia; nor was it devoid
of a Machiavellian note. Catharine never allowed her country to be
taken in tow by another Power. To her, alliances and understandings
were, simply and solely, means for increasing the strength of Russia
with a view to securing for it the status of a really European Power.
1762-96] Catharine's policy towards Germany and the West. 677
And herein she was so successful, that, apart from the acquisition
of territory, which in itself furthered her aims, she almost attained
to the position of arbitress in the affairs of central Europe. She was
able to avail herself of the strong antagonism between Prussia and
Austria, siding now with one and now with the other, and thus dependent
on neither. In the crisis created by the Bavarian War of Succession in
1778, both Powers sought her help at the same time; so that she
could announce her intention to stand surety for the Constitution of
Germany, thus assuming a r6le hitherto played by France. After the
conclusion of the Treaty of Teschen, on which Russia had brought
a decisive influence to bear, Frederick and Maria Theresa expressed
their gratitude for her mediation — an indication of the change in the
European status of Russia, even as compared with that reached under
Peter. It was at Teschen that Catharine laid the foundation of the
political influence exercised by Russia in Germany, and more especially
in Prussia, which lasted far into the nineteenth century.
With England there were not as yet so many points of contact, since
that Power had ofi«red no special opposition to the Russian forward
movement in the East. The change in the Russian relations with
Prussia was, however, accompanied by a similar alienation of England,
and, in the last years of Catharine's reign Pitt was definitely opposed
to her in Eastern affairs. It was against England that the system of
" Armed Neutrality '" (1780) was directed, by means of which Catharine
sought to secure the neutral flag in face of the English practices against
neutral shipping in the war with the North American Colonies, The
declaration marked an important advance in the theoretical develop-
ment of maritime law, but could be of no practical avail against the
naval strength of England.
With all her liking for French society and literature, Catharine's
relations to France had always been rather cool ; and, as to the Eastern
question, France had sided against her, without, however, taking any leading
part. But, despite her attitude towards the AufTcldrung, she was adverse
on principle to the French Revolution, just as she had been indignant
at the American. For the same reason, she became, towards the close of
her reign, more reactionary in her home policy. But, though she might
express her views on the Revolution in France, she took care not to be
drawn into the war for its suppression. On the contrary, she openly
confessed that the War of the First Coalition appeared to her an excel-
lent way of occupying the Courts of Vienna and Berlin, so as to leave
her a free hand for her undertakings. In fact, however, she served the i^
Revolution, inasmuch as her Polish and Eastern policy compelled the J
coalition directed against the West to turn its attention to the East, and /
thus hampered and crippled its action. ^"^
The results of Catharine's foreign policy were, as regards diplomacy,
almost exclusively the work of the sovereign herself. Her ministers and
678 Catharine's foreign poUcy her own. — PotemMn. [i762-96
ambassadors were her assistants ; of counsellors she had no need. Neither
Nikita Panin nor Alexander Besborodko, her Foreign Ministers, held
a position with her resembling that of Bestuzheft' with the Tsarina
Elizabeth or that of Kaunitz with Maria Theresa. Catharine, exactly
like Frederick the Great, managed her foreign affairs herself, notably
by dint of vigorous private correspondence with other crowned heads^
Frederick II, Joseph II, Gustavus III of Sweden (her correspondence
with Prince Henry of Prussia may likewise be included). Her literary
correspondence with Grimm, Voltaire j and Diderot was of some political
signijgcance : she meant these literati to influence the public opinion of
Europe by blowing the Russian trumpet ; and, herein too, she was highly
successful. It is true that these letters betray an undercurrent of personal
vanity on her part; but she exhibits at the same time a marvellous
versatility of mind and skill in dealing with political matters. Her
letters prove her a woman of great political talent, by whom the privir
leges of her sex and position alike were utilised to the full for public
ends, both in her correspondence and more especially in her conversa-
tion. She often tried to transact affairs of State under cover of social
pleasures, delightful as these were to her in themselves. Nor must the
influence of Potemkin on this essentially independent woman be over-
estimated, though he was a favourite of hers and seemed preeminently
trusted by her to play a leading part in public matters. It is certainly
an exaggeration to divide her reign simply into the period before
Potemkin (to c. 1774) and the time of his ascendancy. He may have
imparted a rather more adventurous and fantastic tone to her Eastern
schemes than would otherwise have belonged to them ; but they formed
an organic part of Ilussia''s historic development, and the political action
of the Tsarina did not run out of all bounds in obedience to the
wishes of this strange favourite. He did not dominate her; anyone
who seriously considers the two personalities must be convinced that
such a supposition is psychologically inconceivable. When he took com-
mand of the troops in the second Turkish War, it was she who led and
advised, and allowed herself to be disconcerted by no emergency, while
his passive nature broke down utterly. It was her individual will which
prompted and determined her foreign policy ; though it must of course
be borne in mind that, while her statesmanship justly commands admira-
tion by reason of its firmness, breadth and uniformity, the main lines of
her foreign policy were defined for her with comparative clearness and
simplicity, so soon as she had made up her mind to consult none but
Russian interests. But, if the masterly conduct of foreign affairs in
which lay the chief glory of this reign is entirely attributable to
Catharine, at her door must also be laid the immense sacrifice of life
and property imposed upon the Russian nation by that policy, to whose
demands all home affairs, the material prosperity of her people, and their
advance in civilisation, had always to remain subordinate and subservient.
1762-96] Court factions. — Appeal to national feeling. 679
From the first Catharine threw herself with great zeal into the tasks
appertaining to absolute rule. She endeavoured to inform herself on
every subject, read and wrote a vast amount with this end in view,
and strove to be absolute monarch in home affairs as well as foreign.
Her first task, indeed, was that of securing her own position. She had
usui'ped the throne ; and, although the coup d^etat had easily raised her
to it, a turn of the tide might just as easily bring her down. For
the Guards had been demoralised by the coup d''etat, and aspirants to
Catharine's position were not far to seek. She confessed to having felt
insecure on the throne till the middle of the seventies. At Court, the
various factions were scheming against each other for the upper hand,
as, for example, Princess Dashkoff against the OrlofFs. Catharine owed
the Crown mainly to the energetic support of the Orloffs, who con-
sequently rose to the top, although Gregori, her actual favourite, was
incapable of exerting any real influence on state affairs. For a time it
seemed as if the Tsarina meant to legitimatise her relations with him
by marriage ; and this step , was advised by BestuzheiF, though strongly
opposed by Panin. But she can hardly have seriously contemplated
it, as such a marriage could be of no service to her and must have
involved her immediately in the petty rivalries of the various court
cliques. For her, a stranger to Russia, it was even more important
than it had been to the English Queen Elizabeth to be " wedded to her
people." That Russians proper felt no very great enthusiasm for the
German usurper became evident at the coronation, when the Moscow
populace cheered her son Paul far more than they did the Tsarina
herself, She had all the more need of emphasising her determination
to be a Russian ; and herein she was aided by the fact that no foreigner
ever more thoroughly understood the character, often wholly mysterious,
and the psychology of the Russian people. For instance, no German
was ever one of her numerous favourites, or placed at the head of
Cabinet or army, although in administrative and military affairs she
could but iU dispense with the German element in her State. In this
way she flattered the patriotic feeling which was intensified by the splendid
successes of her foreign policy ; and, in the end, she was accounted a
genuine Russian, though she never was or could become such at heart.
At the outset of her reign she had to struggle against the opposition
of the Orthodox clergy, which might have become exceedingly dangerous
to her. As regards religion, she, was heart and soul a child of the
Aifkldrung ; but such convictions did not prevent her from clearly
recognising the importance of the Greek Church, in which Old Russian
opinion might find a support against her. She therefore pursued
vigorously and successfully the ecclesiastical policy of Peter III, namely
the secularisation of church lands. Archbishop Arseni Mazeievich of
RostofF became the representative of the opposition against her and her
policy, which ended by openly questioning her right to the throne (1763
680 Death of Ivan Antonovich, — False claimants. [i762-96
and 1767). Catharine had to face a dangerous crisis, and came through
it successfully. The common people associated various legends with
the person of the prelate who vanished into the dungeons of Reval;
evidently, he had elicited something of an echo among the masses, and
their attitude towards the new regime was by no means enthusiastic.
This disaffection and unrest might easily have found a tangible and
thus exceedingly dangerous centre. Ivan Antonovich was still living 'in
Schliisselburg, though almost reduced to idiocy by his long imprison-
ment, and any fresh revolutionary movement might well make use of
him as a rival for the throne. It was, therefore, fortunate for Catharine
that he met his end in a wild attempt made for his liberation (1764).
In this case also Catharine has been accused of the trick of having
participated in the plan for her rival's release in order to effect his
removal. She was, however, assuredly innocent of Ivatfs murder; but
the rumour proves how insecure her position was thought.
The last genuine claimant was thus disposed of. But all through the
reign there was a succession of false claimants. Russia has always been
the classical land for the type ; so that each instance of it must be
regarded as part of a problem in social pathology. So far as Catharine's
reign is concerned, the murder of Peter III, Ivan's long imprisonment,
and the criminal proceedings against supposed revolutionary designs,
were shrouded in so much mystery as to excite the imagination of the
people, who were quite prepared to believe that it was not the real
Peter, Ivan, and so forth, that had been done away with. Pseudo-
pretenders, often mere adventurers or robber-chiefs, were readily followed
by the Russian populace, who thus testified to a complicated series of
experiences that had impressed themselves upon it — bad government
and a barbarously arbitrary administration of justice; the miserable
social condition of the peasantry, oppressed by the conscription and by
a load of taxation imposed by authorities ruthlessly set upon finding
men and money ; together with the instinctive hostility of the people to
non-Russian domination; the hatred nursed by the sectaries against
the persecution of their creed by the state Church ; the remembrance
of their lost freedom cherished by the Cossacks; the hostility of the
"foreign" elements towards Russian nationalism; the repugnance to a
settled condition of things natural to a people which, after all, had not
as yet fully emerged from the nomadic state and still clung largely to
vagrant habits. Amid these constant convulsions of the politic body the
pretender became in the end a mere accessory ; the movements in question
were in fact social upheavals, with a national woof in the texture. The
most formidable rising was Pugachoff's, of which Bibikoff, who had been
sent to quell it, wrote appositely: "Pugachoff matters little, but the
universal discontent much."
This rising of Pugachoff (1773-5), coinciding as it did with the
Turkish War, was the most serious internal crisis which Catharine had
1722-97] Pugachoff's rising. — The Succession question. 681
to face during her reign. Jemelian Pugachoff, a Don Cossack, who
could neither read nor write, came forward as Pretender, professing to be
Peter III, who was not really dead at all. The wave of insurrection
stirred up by him in the south-east rolled onwards amid terrible atro-
cities, and was swelled by all the currents of feeling noted above. It was
at one and the same time a peasant revolt and a rising of Cossacks,
Tartars, Chuvas, Bashkirs, and others, against the Russians. It lasted
for a long time, until the insurgents, who were already threatening
Moscow, were overthrown and Pugachoff was put to death. But the
Pretender had almost been lost sight of in the horrors of the struggle
and in the universal excitement. The rising was no longer a movement
to dethrone the Tsarina, but a revolution — not a political revolution
with definite political aims, but a social upheaval, a sort of Jacgtierie.
It became glaringly evident how unprepared and how unsound at heart
was the State which at that very time succeeded in concluding the
Treaty of Kutchuk-Kainardji. An appalling contrast was thus revealed
between the outward splendour and the wild ferment of the interior,
between the European form of the State and the Asiatic barbarity of
the people.
After 1775 the Tsarina felt secure, even though the intrigues at
Court had not ceased, nor the discontent among the people, especially in
Moscow. To this was added her suspicion of her own son Paul. The
relations between mother and son were not of the best ; he reminded her
of his father, like whom she considered him unfit to rule the empire.
She intended accordingly to exclude him from the succession to the
throne. From a legal point of view, the execution of this intention would
not have amounted to an act of violence; for it had been provided by
Peter I that every Tsar should appoint his successor. Catharine had
her grandson Alexander in view as her successor and made a point of
alienating him from his father; while Paul was kept away from the
Court and from affairs of State, she won over Alexander and Constantine
to herself. Thus, the same condition of things repeated itself which she
had experienced as Tsarevna under Elizabeth; and the throne which
Catharine had herself with difficulty secured was once more exposed to
the risk of violent agitations. But her death intervened before the
matter had been entirely settled according to her wishes ; and Paul was
able to ascend the throne without difficulty or opposition. In 1797, he
reintroduced the law of succession by primogeniture, which continues in
force in Russia at the present day.
Catharine, being a usurper, had to depend very specially on the support
of the new bureaucracy created by Peter I in the order of precedence
issued on February 4, 1722. Russia was henceforth in civil and military
affairs under the sway of the agreement between the Tsar and this
bureaucracy (the Chm), who were alike separated from the people by
a broad line of cleavage. These allied authorities held the reins of
682 Military and civil administration. [i762-96
government, each being defeply interested in the existence of the other ;
the vast subject mass of the people stood by, uncomprehending and
apathetic like a sacrificial lamb, while its rulers brought about the new
development of Russia as part of the European world. Far from reform-
ing, Catharine rather intensified this relation, which possesses so enormous
an importance for the history of Russia. The instruments of her policy
were the officers, who commanded the soldiers drawn from the peasantry,
and the bureaucracy, whose formal composition and organisation she
altered to some extent, but without being able to change its character
materially. It was the task of this bureaucracy to hold the resources of
the country in readiness, so as to place them at the immediate disposal
of the sole and absolute sovereign. Thus the whole administration
absolutely and entirely centred in St Petersburg and the Tsarina.
In the first instance, she was environed by a number of Ministries, or
Colleges, as Peter I had termed these central authorities founded by him.
Of these only the Department for Foreign Afiairs, the War Depart-
ment, and the Admiralty, remained intact and of importance. The title
of Chancellor, which was attached to the Ministry for Foreign Affairs,
lapsed under Catharine : the Foreign Ministers (Panin and Besborodko),
however, discharged the office of Chancellor, with the assistance of a Vice-
Chancellor (Prince Alexander Galitsin, and afterwards Count Osterman).
The other departments lost their raison d'Stre under Catharine and were
abolished, their functions being transferred by her to the Boards con-
stituted in the provinces. On the other hand an attempt was made by
her to establish a central administration of revenue; but this was not
systematically carried out. The head of this central financial admini-
stration was the Procurator-General, whose post, created by Peter in
order to facilitate the relations between Tsar and Senate, became an
exceedingly important one under Catharine: this official (since 1764!
Prince Viasemski), as the head of the whole internal administration,
took the lead in home affairs. No real importance was attained by the
departmental organisations, which the central offices were to weld into
a systematic whole, nor by the Senate, which had originated in Peter Ps
reign, nor yet by the Imperial Council, which Catharine had added in
1768, to meet the needs of the military administration in the Turkish
War. For Catharine had herself so strong an interest in legislative and
administrative matters, that she preferred to manage the various branches
directly through the agency of persons on whom she could rely. In the
main she was her own Minister, Chancellor, and Imperial Council.
The fundamental principle of administration in Russia was centralisa-
tion in the hands of the sovereign. Catharine was, however, shrewd
enough to see that in her enormous empire such a centralisation was, as
a matter of fact, impracticable, unless methodically supplemented by
allowing the highest possible measure of independence to the administra-
tion of the provinces. In place, therefore, of the more or less chaotic
1775-96] Provincial administration. 683
conditions of local administration, she established (1775) a system of
governorships on which the provincial administration of Russia at the
present day is largely based. This reform, if tending overmuch towards
regular uniformity, was at the same time of great importance. Its chief
features were as follows: the unwieldy governmental districts then
existing were to be split up into smaller districts of 300,000 to 400,000
inhabitants, which were further subdivided into circles of 20,000 to
30,000, but grouped together in large provinces under Governors-General.
There was to be decentralisation, distribution of functions, and establish-
ment of judicial and administrative Boards ; while the population was to
cooperate, organised in Estates, for purposes of local administration.
The model for the main part of these changes was supplied by the
German (Baltic) provinces, and during the two decades required for
carrying them into eflFect the Tsarina was materially assisted by Count
Johann Jakob Sievers, a Baltic nobleman, one of her leading officials.
The idea was to have a local administration which would best serve
the interests of people and State, whereas direction and control should
rest with the central body. The framework was to consist of two
governmental Boards (administrative and financial) under the Governor
and Vice-Govemor, with the Governor's Civil and Criminal Court. In
addition, a number of authorities superintended justice, police, poor-
relief, etc., which were to be elected by the people partially in the case
of the provinces and entirely in that of the circles. By means of this
comprehensive reform, Catharine wished to give self-goveminent to the
people as. organised in Estates. But what was established was, of course,
not "self-government" properly so called; for it is contradictory to
the spirit of even the most enlightened despotism to permit any really
independent participation of the people in government by means of
elective bodies. Catharine looked upon the share taken by the Estates
as a function of the State, and upon the oiHcials elected by them as
state officials ; she allowed them a wide scope for activity, but not the
conditions of any real autonomy, and much less the right of levying
taxes. For these organs of the Estates were intended to carry out
the will, not of the people, but of the sovereign, and to perform the tasks
prescribed by her; since, according to the conception of enlightened
despotism, the will of the sovereign must of necessity be the most
rational. Yet even this concession in the direction of self-government
was excessive in the eyes of the official classes. With the aid of the
autocracy, conceived of as indicated, these new bodies were utilised by
them in such a way as entirely to forfeit their character of organs of
self-government. Such a course was rendered possible by the compact
between Tsardom and Chm on the one hand, and by the immaturity
of the population on the other. As a matter of fact, self-government did
not ensue from the law of 1775, as might have been anticipated from its
wording. The centre of gravity of the local administration lay in the
684 Provincial administration. [i775-96
Governor or Governor-General as the case might be, who was virtually
nothing more than the local representative of the central Government.
Thus, this reform associated with Catharine's name failed to bring about
so great an advance in the art of administration as ought to have ensued.
A better distribution of functions between central and provincial
authorities was achieved, and a general organisation of local government
was effected which was a considerable improvement on the former state
of affairs, although, it must be confessed, somewhat inelastic, and not
altogether calculated to work smoothly. The law of 1775, however,
failed to result in real self-government, and to shake the power of the
bureaucracy ; it did not give rise to that restraining force which alone
could improve the character of the cSivil service. Catharine endeavoured
to master every difficulty and to reform in every direction ; she was the
first sovereign since Peter the Great to travel about Russia, in order to
form an idea of things for herself; but, owing to the enormous size
of the country, the lack of means of communication, and the passive
obstruction of the official classes, she was unable, in spite of aU her great
natural gifts and force of character, to accomplish a wholesale reform.
She could not, single-handed, alter the character of the officials, who
remained on the whole arbitrary, negligent, corrupt, and mercenary;
and often she was herself only too prone to judge by appearances.
Catharine's administrative reform manifests her eminence in a sphere of
action usually closed to women; but at the same time it reveals the
limitations imposed on an enlightened despotism even when represented
by a sovereign of such brilliant gifts and so powerful a will.
K the nation was to be led up after this fashion to self-government,
it needed to be already organised, or to become organised in one way
or another, and in its several Estates, since it was in strict accordance
with the system of Estates that this particular form of self-government
was devised. The peasantry had from of old been organised in their
traditional communities. Catharine's legislation tried to bring these
into line for self-government. In the newly constituted bodies, few in
number, which were to embrace all ranks of society, the peasantry were
to be represented, and, where a special agency had been provided for
each Estate, the peasants also were to have one of their own. But this
only held good in respect of peasants belonging to the Crown ; the vast
majority were manorial peasants, who, being debarred from all rights
conferred by this administrativie reform, remained under the exclusive
control of the landowners. But even this limited measure of self-govern-
ment was shorn of all significance for the crown peasants, too, in
consequence of the construction put upon it by the bureaucracy and of
the low state of civilisation of the peasant population.
On the other hand, it was of some importance for the towns on which
the municipal system promulgated in 1785 conferred a form of self-
government based on a classification of their inhabitants (in guilds.
X775-96] Municipal government. — 2' he nobility. 685
companies, etc.). But, here again, self-government did not imply very
much — for the simple reason that in Russia there existed as yet no
middle class as such with its distinctive social aspirations. Thus, at
bottom, in the towns also everything remained virtually dependent on
the organs of the Government.
What amount of self-government the administrative reform of 1775
did bring about was, as a matter of fact, solely to the advantage of the
nobility; this reform, coupled with the "Letter of Grace to the Nobility,"
of 1785, completed the process by which they became the privileged class.
Not only did they enjoy unconditional, direct, and unrestrained power over
their own peasantry, but the State was virtually, if indirectly, controlled
by them as a bureaucracy, and through the medium of this so-called self-
government. By the "Letter of Grace" the nobles were corporately
organised as belonging to the several circles and provinces (with an
assembly and a marshal of the order); this organisation, which continues
in the main to the present day, was modelled on that of the Baltic
provinces. The elections of the oificial functionaries of the Estates,
instituted in 1775, took place according to the circles and provinces. The
exemption of the nobility from state service, granted by Peter III, was
continued by Catharine. The nobles enjoyed immunity from taxation,
might not be subjected to corpoi-al punishment, and so forth. They
now possessed absolute power over their peasantry, but were responsible
to the Government for the due performance of state obligations by their
peasants, in the way of military service and payment of poll tax. Thus,
the reform of 1775 had conceded no real self-government of a kind to
educate the nation politically. The State was ruled by an absolute Tsar
and a bureaucracy in the hands of the Chm, whose hierarchy remained.
As a highly privileged class of landed proprietors and as a social order,
the nobles had a great measure of power; it was from their ranks that the
oiHcials were mainly drawn, and they thus controlled administration and
justice — but political importance they had none, more especially as the
rank of a noble was easily attained, being conferred as a matter of course
on anyone who reached a certain position in the table of precedence.
The Chin and the landed proprietors were actual powers in the land;
but the nobles constituted no country gentry, as such, in the Russia of
the Tsars, corresponding to that which existed in western Europe. This
development, the result of which was of vital importance for Russia, was
definitively marked out by Catharine's legislation. Speaking generally,
the whole reform aimed at an organically subdivided national life on a
local basis ; but it failed to achieve a result which presupposed a freedom
incompatible with the absolutism of the Tsars and consequently not
permitted by them.
This contrast between theory and pi'actice is still more clearly
apparent in Catharine's treatment of the peasant question and in her
famous "Legislative Commission." This Commission, which sat from
686 Codification. — The Nakds. [i767-8
1767 to 1768, seemed to be a move in the direction of legislation by the
people themselves — the beginning, in other words, of a parliamentary
system in Russia. It will therefore be easily understood that this step
caused the greatest possible sensation in Europe and, since it was incon-
ceivable that Russia could be transformed from an absolute monarchy
into a State which had limited its own powers, was regarded, and
ridiculed, as sheer comedy. As a matter of fact, the Commission was
intended to be neither a parliament, nor even the germ of one.
Catharine had eagerly assumed the duties of a ruler, having prepared
herself for them by her study of writings in French political philosophy.
As an enthusiastic student of the new French school, she felt that an
opportunity was now afforded her of introducing into Russia its liberal
and humane doctrines, so fraught with blessings for the people. She
was imbued with the conviction that a clear legal code and good laws
were of paramoimt, indeed of all-important, value. Such laws as there
were in Russia consisted of a confused mass of the most heterogeneous
provisions; it had been recognised before Catharine's time that they
required systematic codification, though this had not been accomplished.
Catharine, a true child of the eighteenth century, was of opinion that
it was necessary, in the first place, to establish fresh legal principles
adapted to the age, with which the detailed regulations must be made
to accord ; this method of procedure would best remedy the deficiencies
in the existing laws and render them what they had not been in the past
—a really just expression of existing conditions. She undertook herself
the task of establishing the general principles on which the legal code
was to be drawn up; she even represented it to Voltaire as a simple
matter to determine the general principles. The problem of working
out the details according to these principles was confided to representa-
tives of the people, so that the nation should have an opportunity of
making known its wishes and needs in regard to the legislative settlement.
Catharine next proceeded, quite in private, to elaborate these general
principles ; and they were published in 1767 in the shape of her famous
"Instruction (Nakds) to the commission appointed to prepare a draft
for a new code." This remarkable document did not, however, appear
in the form which she had originally given it, but previously underwent
extensive modification at the hands of persons consulted by her.
Catharine had herself felt, and her advisers had made it still clearer,
that the general ideals of the Aufkldrung in State and society, not
practicable even in western Europe, were little adapted to Russian circum-
stances ; " these are axioms fit to bring down stone walls," Count Nikita
Panin had said of the Liberal views of the Nakds in its first form. With
Catharine's authorisation it had been transformed and hsA received a
thoroughly conservative tone ; in pai-ticular its views on the condition
and future of the peasantry were revised — it need hardly be said in
what sense. Thus, here already, is observable the contradiction between
theory and practice which permeates the whole work.
1767-85] Representative Legislative Commission. 687
Even in this form, however, the Ndkas is a book of great note
and interest. It affords some insight into Catharine's social and political
views in general. These are by no means original, since the work
as a whole reveals but little independent thought. She herself con-
fesses to wearing a great many borrowed plumes. Her sources were
in the first place Montesquieu's Esprit des Lois, and, next, Beccaria's
recent work Dei delitti e delle pene (Crime and Punishment), published
in 1764. The several paragraphs offer general remarks on State and
society rather than an enunciation of set legal principles ; in fact, the
book is a sort of legislative catechism. It is permeated by an optimism
that delights in human progress, and is derived from ethics based on the
law of nature ; and it is instinct with the sense of responsibility proper
to enlightened despotism, though these latter ideas are unable to blend
quite harmoniously with the rest. "The people do not exist for
the ruler, but the ruler for the people," and "the ruler is the source of
all civil and political power "-^-here we have natural right and Tsarism
in juxtaposition. The impression created by the book in Europe was
deservedly great ; but it was of course practically useless as a guide to
the codification of Russian law.
If in this general design Catharine had not been able to mould all the
principles and demands contained in it as she had desired, far more serious
difficulties were encountered in the process of elaborating her suggestions
into particular laws and adapting to them the existing legal material.
Though the Commission appointed for this purpose was not intended to
be a parliament, it was in point of fact the first representation of the
whole nation since the Semskie Sdbory of the sixteenth and seventeenth
centuries, and was thus virtually a parliament — consisting of no less than
564 njembers elected by the people and embracing all ranks of society
except the clergy, who were not represented as a class. The manorial
peasants were of course only represented by their masters, whereas the
crown peasants sent deputies. The total was made up of 161 represen-
tatives of the nobility, 208 of the towns, 79 from the peasantry, 54 from
the Cossacks, 34 from "foreign" peoples as they were called — this
representation of Samoyedes and Bashkirs was ridiculed abroad — and in
addition 28 representatives of the Government. These class divisions
exhibit the same feature in the system of representation as that which
recurs in 1775 and again in 1785, and which is fundamentally opposed
to the ideas of the Aufhlarung and of the Nakds itself.
The elections went off smoothly, and on August 10, 1767, the Com-
mission was opened in the audience-chamber at the Kremlin in Moscow.
Out of three candidates nominated by Catharine, Bibikoff was chosen
President, and he with the Procurator-General of Finance (Viasemski)
conducted the proceedings, which passed off in a dignified and orderly
lashion. The , deputies displayed the natural eloquence and parlia-
mentary ability innate in the Russian people., After the Tsarina's
688 End of the Commission. Its effects. [i767-85
mandate had been read aloud, there followed the mandates of each
electoral district to its deputy. These, nearly 1500 in number, together
present an almost complete picture of the condition of the most widely
divergent sections of the Russian people, and for this reason an excep-
tional historical interest attaches to them like that belonging to the
cahiers of the French Revolution. With the Tsarina's Nakds for their
guidance, and with the aid of these, of course entirely unsystematic, lists
of popular requests, the Commission now had to compile a modern code
out of the confused and incongruous mass of materials confronting them
in the existing laws, over 10,000 in number. It is obvious that the task
was an impossible one for this body of men. Catharine had sought
to win the fame of a Justinian, underrating in happy ignorance the
enormous difficulty of such a work. There was, as a matter of course,
considerable difficulty about producing a systematic codification within
a reasonable time through an assembly of such diverse social aims ; and
it was rendered insurmountable by the utter absence of all preparatory
work, the unpractical and ill-defined distribution of the labours of the
Commission and the incapacity of those responsible for its management.
Not a single section of the future code was produced, nor, in the course
of 200 sittings, were all the mandates of the deputies read out. At the
end of 1767, the Commission was transferred to St Petersburg, and the
sittings became less frequent. Then, on the outbreak of the Turkish
War in 1768, many of the members were called away to serve in the
army, and the Commission was adjourned, never to meet again. The
sub-committees went on working for a time, till they too came to a
quiet end. Catharine seems to have entirely forgotten the Commission
after 1775. She must have realised that nothing was to be accomplished
in this way, and so have determined to confine herself to legislation. But
this interesting experiment was not in vain; although begun without
any serious appreciation of its importance, it diffused, in Catharine's
own words, "light and knowledge over the whole empire with which
we have to deal and for which we have to provide." No Tsar had
hitherto adopted this attitude towards the condition, wishes, and needs
of the various strata of his people ; the mandates of the deputies, the
privileges of the nobility and of the merchants, the peasant question,
and so forth, had been very amply discussed. Abundant proofs had
been given of the class selfishness of the nobles, more especially of those
of Moscow, who had a leader of weight in Prince Scherbatoff, yet had
been the chief opponents of the demands advanced by him. The
representatives of Little Russians and Cossacks, and those of the
Baltic provinces, who, though in part not even able to speak Russian,
had formed the most important element in the Commission, had
brought to light their various special needs. The administration of
justice, decentrahsation, and self-government had been discussed. In a
word, there was now in hand a mass of valuable information as to the
1775-96] The question of the Emancipation of the Serfs. 689
temper and condition of the people. But the lofty designs formed by
Catharine, when undertaking the reform of legislation, had produced no
results but the administrative regulations of 1775 and the Letters of
Grace of 1785; and even these documents had only in part the significance
which at first sight they seem to possess.
The important point was, however, that the peasant question, in
which Catharine had been interested even as Tsarevna, had thus before
her death met with a treatment diametrically opposed to the fact that,
in accordance with the ideas of the century, she was, as her own state-
ments testify, in favour of the liberation of the serfs. Among her
papers there are projects for the gradual abolition of serfdom by the
emancipation of the peasants in cases of land changing hands. In the
first edition of the Nakas a great deal was said about the necessity for
ameliorating the condition of the peasantry and doing away with serfdom.
When the St Petersburg Free Economic Society had announced as the
subject of a prize essay the emancipation of the peasantry, the Tsarina
promoted a widespread competition both in Russia and abroad; and the
prize was awarded to an inhabitant of Aix-la-Chapelle, who advocated
the emancipation of the peasants. She also allowed the "Legislative
Commission " to discuss the question at considerable length and was ill-
pleased when the majority supported the existing law. It appeared
consistent and logical that the abolition of serfdom should go hand in
hand with the exemption of the nobility from state service definitively
established by the Letter of Grace of 1785. It seemed scandalous that
advertisements should appear in the papers for the sale of peasants
unattached to any land ; this was slavery pure and simple — a term other-
wise inapplicable to the relations between landowners and peasants,
though sometimes used for purposes of agitation.
In spite of aU this, however, serfdom continued to be censured in
theory, whereas in practice the existing state of things was aggravated
in the interests of the landowners. In the final printed version of the
Nakas numerous Liberal expressions on the subject of the peasantry were
suppressed under the influence of the cuiTent which had set in against
reform. It was not, as the Slavophils maintained, the fault of the
Tsarina or even of the Germans that nothing came of the emancipation
of the peasants in Catharine's reign ; the result must be laid at the door
of the landed nobility, who in this matter proved too strong for the
sovereign. She was on the horns of a dilemma : if she abandoned her
compact with the dominant section of society and effected the emanci-
pation of the serfs in spite of its opposition, could she in her still
precarious position rely upon the wild and largely fluctuating masses
let loose by her act of emancipation ? Their constant convulsions and
risings proved how insecure was her footing; for Pugachoff's revolt,
the greatest and most dangerous, was by no means an isolated occurrence.
The Tsarina must have seen she would have run too great a risk in
0. JU. B. VI. CD, XIX. 44
690 The condition of the peasantry. [i762-96
carrying such a measure in opposition to the nobility; and thus she
did not throw the whole force of her will into her theoretical scheme
of emancipation. Hence her agrarian policy likewise bore a twofold
character. She placed peasants in the towns which she founded and
of which she made them free citizens. She changed the whole mass of
peasantry formerly owned by the clergy from manorial into crown
peasants — certainly a considerable advance for them. On the German
peasant colonists who came into her dominions and were settled on the
lower Volga, she bestowed an admirable legal and administrative system,
which, in conjunction with the influence of schools and religious ministry,
produced great prosperity in these settlements. On the other hand, by
her enormous gifts of land and peasants to her favourites she vastly
increased the number of peasants attached to private estates. Altogether,
her administrative reform did not in the slightest degree affect the
manorial serfs, as they were not represented on the " Legislative Com-
mission." Despite all her vaunted enthusiasm for liberty, the rights of
the landowners were increased under her rkgime, and villanage continued
in the same form as before. Thus landowners, in addition to the right
of sending their peasants to Siberia — which was already allowed —
gained that of imposing on them forced labour for " insolence " towards
their masters. A landed proprietor might send a peasant to serve in
the army, whenever he pleased, without waiting for the regular recruit-
ing time; and a peasant was actually forbidden to bring an action
against his master. In short, the peasant seemed to be a mere chattel,
a personal possession, a slave, and not a subject of the State. The sale
of peasants unattached to the land was indeed forbidden, but it did not
cease, any more than illicit traffic in peasants at recruiting time. In
Little Russia serfdom was first introduced in this reign. Thus the
economic interests of the nobility as a class outweighed the theoretical
opinions and wishes of the Tsarina; and the patriarchal relation between
the peasant and his master survived. It was not as a matter of course
oppressive for the peasant, but it kept him entirely at the mercy of his
master, whose one-sided interest in the services of his peasants, coupled
with his own responsibility for the burdens imposed by the State, effec-
tively checked all progress of civilisation among the peasants, who in
so purely agricultural a country formed the enormous majority of its
population. In fact, the condition of the peasantry under Catharine
was deplorably wretched. This became alarmingly evident from the
description of their condition in Radishcheff's Journey Jrom St Peters-
burg to Moscow (1790), a simple, somewhat sentimental narrative in the
style of Sterne. But the views of Catharine, upon whom the French
Revolution in particular had exercised its effect, were no longer those of
the authoress of the Nakas, with which the Journey was in perfect accord.
The unfortunate writer was banished to Siberia as a revolutionary
agitator.
1762-96] Domestic pressure. — Catharine's economic policy. 691
At the same time, the burdens and sacrifices imposed by the Govern-
ment weighed heavily upon these very peasants, who were treated as
slaves, but who had to be regarded as subjects of the State and as
citizens, at all events from the point of view of duties. In order to win
her great successes abroad, Catharine strained the resources of the nation
to the utmost, more than it could bear without detriment to its advance
in civilisation. Her home policy was entirely subservient to her foreign
policy, and no thorough-going reforms could be achieved because the
claims of foreign affairs constantly intervened. This pressure, unavoid-
able in itself, but fatal to the internal progress of the nation, was due to
Russia's recent political advance, and was a legacy from Peter the Great
to Catharine, who in turn bequeathed it to her successors. The primary
duty of the Government at home was the supply of men and money.
The wars cost many lives, and the losses were even greater than in the
case of other European States, by reason of the bad military administra-
tion, and the natural difficulties presented by the theatres of these wars.
The annual expenditure during Catharine's reign rose from 17 to 70 or
80 million roubles (=^2,408,000 to £9,917,000), almost exclusively for
purposes of foreign policy — and this in a country whose population was
far too low in proportion to its vast area, and where no surplus wealth
was produced. Catharine succeeded in raising the importance of Russia
abroad, but only by drawing upon the capital which the country
possessed in the powers and resources of its people. She was unable to
repress the unscrupulousness of the officials and the abuses connected
with conscription, which rendered the popular burdens still harder to
bear. Neither was it beneficial to the public health, that under her rule
the proceeds of the state monopoly of spirits formed one-eighth of the
whole revenue.
In her economic views and in the tendencies of her economic and
commercial policy Catharine appears to have been a moderate Liberal,
with physiocratic principles. In this respect she differed from Peter the
Great who was a strong mercantilist ; and, here again, she was a direct
adherent of contemporary theories. She was therefore in favour of
freedom of trade and manufacture and, instead of continuing to impose
all sorts of regulations, removed many oppressive restrictions. Export
duties were abolished, and the prohibition of the export of wheat was
cancelled; all monopolies were abolished, and for a time the Empress
actually allowed the unrestricted import and export of gold, which was
contrary to all mercantilist theories. Industries were to be carried on
freely; private works and factories might be founded without special
permission from the authorities and were to be treated as private
property; the benefit of free competition at home being thus recognised.
In Catharine's commercial policy she consequently likewise adhered to
moderate Liberal lines ; in 1782, a Liberal tariff was put in force instead
of that of 1767, which had still been mercantilist in character. In 1763,
CH. XIX. 44 — 2
692 Limits of Catharine's Liberalism. [i762-96
she appointed a "Trade Commission" to deal with all matters connected
with trade ; it was a sort of Ministry for Commerce of an advisory
nature, which continued in force till 1796. The moderate Liberal views
of the Empress prevailed in this body, which was under her sole super-
intendence ; hencej when the Tsarina veered round to protectionism in
1793, the Commission followed suit ; for towards the end of her reign
she relinquished her Liberal . propensities on this head also. The
unsatisfactory financial condition into which the empire was sinking
deeper and deepei^ furnished the immediate pretext for a revision of the
customs policy of which the new tariff of 1796 was the outcome; this
did not, however, come into force, as the death of the Tsarina ensued and
her successor rescinded the tariff.
But in general, too, Catharine's Liberalism in commercial and
industrial matters was mainly a paper policy. In practice, political
and fiscal interests were paramount all through, and her economic
Liberalism only came into play where it directly contributed to these
ends, or at all events did not run counter to them. If the natural law
of the freedom of the individual is an essential element in the Physio-
cratic conception, Russia could not have been further from following it.
Despite free trade and the abolition of monopoly no part of Russia was
ripe for a really frefe economic system, and the economic Liberalism
of this enlightened Empress accordingly had little real meaning.
Catharine's whole policy in regard to the internal welfare of Russia is
fragmentary and spasmodic ; it was not free from dilettantism and paid
no due attention to detail ; it suffered from the lack of an efficient
executive and from the restrictions placed upon it by the Tsarina's
foreign policy. Her memory is best perpetuated by her efforts for the
improvement of the water-ways of the empire, in which Count Sievers
vigorously supported her, and by the foundation of new towns, often
rashly undertaken, and genuinely successful only in the case of Odessa.
What has been said of Catharine's economic policy is equally true of
her course of action in regard to the education and the general advance-
ment of her people, much as she prided herself on her entire legislative
activity and liked to look at everything in the most favourable light. " It
is clear," she says, " that education is at the root of all good and evil ; a
new race or new fathers and mothers must therefore, so to speak, be
produced, by means of education in the first instance." She accordingly
provided cadet corps for boys, boarding-schools for girls — ^the school for
noblemen's daughters at Smolna was founded by her. There were to be
national schools in the capital of each province and circle ; and she
intended to found new universities. But though her energy and that of
her adviser Betzki call for commendation, no thorough-going reforms
could be effected because of the want of resources and other drawbacks to
which reference has been made. Nothing, therefore, came of the interest
in learning which animated the Tsarina and of which she gave so many
1762-96] Her ecclesiastical policy. 693
proofs. Recognition is also due to her efforts on behalf of the public
health, in the engagement of medical men, the provision of hospitals,
etc. She instituted an Imperial Medical Commission, and created a
great sensation by being inoculated for the small-pox and thus helping
to overcome the prejudices on that head. Thus her fields of activity
were many and various ; sometimes she moved prematurely, but always
with a sense of her responsibility, and her methods were invariably
shrewd and vigorous. But she met with insurmountable barriers in the
vastness of her dominions, the low grade of culture of the population,
and the incapacity and indolence of the administration ; while the over-
whelming demands of her foreign policy left to the merits and successes
of her domestic rule a value nominal rather than substantial.
In religion Catharine was a child of the Aufkldrung. She was,
accordingly, tolerant towards sectaries and divergent forms of faith. In
her ecclesiastical policy she was entirely guided by reasons of State;
while admitting the importance of maintaining the Orthodox Church,
she made it absolutely a state institution. In carrying out the seculari-
sation of ecclesiastical property up to 1768, she deprived the clergy of
all independent political significance, since in future they were the paid
servants of the State. In this, she was following in the steps of Peter
the Great ; the very measures which he had adopted in regard to the
old Boyars she was applying to the clergy — a move of singular import-
ance foi: the Tsardom. She had to come to an understanding with the
Roman Catholic Church, since large numbers professing that faith had
become her subjects by the Partitions of Poland. She treated this
difficult problem with her customary good sense and vigour ; extending
toleration to the Church of Rome, and establishing satisfactory relations
with the Papacy, but at the same time rigidly maintaining however the
supremacy of the State. She never dreamt of a concordat ; and, when
the Pope dissolved the Order of Jesus, she thanked the Fathers for the
services which they had rendered to her ecclesiastical policy, giving them
permission to found a noviciate so that the Order could continue in her
country in spite of the Bull of dissolution. It was particularly in eccle-
siastical matters that Catharine revealed her statesmanship and resolutely
practical policy ; and, in so far as matters of this kind could be decided
by these qualities, she thoroughly mastered the situation — which can be
said of but few monarchs. In ecclesiastical questions, however, states-
manship does not count for everything ; it could wipe out neither the
mistrust felt by the White Russian clergy towards the Jesuits, nor
the loyal attachment to Rome; neither could it solve off-hand the
problems suggested by these currents of feeling.
Was it, we may now proceed to ask, Catharine's aim to Russify
her non-Russian subjects.? On this point she expressed herself in no
uncertain manner in the instructions which she c&ew up with her own
hand for Prince Viasemski as Procurator-General of Finance: "Little
694 Treatment of particular provinces. [i762-96
Russia, Livonia and Finland are administered according to the privileges
confirmed to them. To break through these and annul them all at once
would be extremely ill-advised. But to call them alien peoples and
treat them on this basis would be worse than a mistake — it would be
a serious blunder. These provinces, together with Smolensk, must
be induced by the gentlest methods to consent to being Russified."
These remarks, of course, do not apply to Poland; the Tsarina was
not as yet confronted with the whole difficult problem of the treat-
ment of Poland and of the position to be assigned to it within the
Russian empire. But her Polish policy proved that she knew how to
treat the Polish nobles and to attach them to herself. Her own words
show her to have consciously favoured the creation of a centralised Great
Russia — an ideal to which she was attracted, generally, by the levelling
tendency inherent in absolutism, and^ in particular, by her own position
as Tsarina. But this ideal was to be realised without any forcible repres-
sion of foreign nationalities, whom she rather sought to weld into the
Great Russian State by means of good government such as would arouse
a sense of gratitude in them. Her willingness, in some cases, to allow the
continuance of separate conditions of existence in particular provinces was
simply and solely a matter of tactics. In her dealings with respect to the
frontier lands she knew exactly how far she could go, how far from
the point of view of the interests .of Russia as a Great Power she
must go, and where she was at liberty to stop. She was not inclined
to grant to the Baltic Provinces a measure of political autonomy
such as would be inimical to the position won by Russia on the Baltic,
and she was ill-pleased at the manner in which the Baltic members of
the Legislative Commission pleaded for the maintenance of separate
conditions for their provinces. She intervened by introducing, in 1783,
the establishment of Governors and the imposition of a poll tax on the
peasants in the Baltic Provinces also ; they were not to be allowed to
develop in such a way as to be estranged from Russia. But she respected
the privileges recognised by Peter the Great, and allowed the body of
Knights (Ritterscha/i) to retain their self-government, being much too
wise and liberal not to see that the independent German culture of the
Baltic Provinces was far ahead of that of the rest of Russia and, instead
of becoming a danger, might serve as a model. By this policy she brought
her non-Russian dominions into the right and necessary relation with the
empire, while arousing in them an enthusiastic loyalty, which she turned
to good account, towards herself and the dynasty. The Baltic countries
indeed furnished her with a whole series of statesmen and officers; of
eight men who held the important post of ambassador at Warsaw in her
reign, four (or five) were Baltic nobles.
Her action in regard to the particular frontier land to which she
attached primary importance in her dealings with Viasemski, if some-
what painful for those concerned, was equally right from the point of
1764-83] Little Russia and the Cossacks. 695
view of the power of Russia as a whole. Catharine brought it to pass
that Little Russia ceased to be a frontier country. The Little Russians
regarded the Great Russians with aversion and detestation, the two
being distinct races and speaking different languages. They were united
with Moscow only by the common sovereignty established by the Treaty
of Pereyaslavl (1654!) and they retained at their head a Hetman of their
own as an indication of their independence. Of primary importance to
Moscow were the Saporog Cossacks, who had settled on the far side of
the rapids of the Dnieper (hence the name) and whose free and warlike
community of Sich had constituted an outpost against the Tartars.
Without a close connexion with these, which had been endangered by
Charles XII in the days of Mazepa, the Russian route to the Black Sea
was insecure. But Catharine, who looked askance on the separate rights
and organisation of the Ukraine, and on the innate hostility of the Little
Russians towards the claims of Great Russia, desired, to begin with, the
abolition of the office of Hetman, which, without being dangerous in
itself, served to emphasise the independent position of Little Russia. It
was done away with in 1764 and a Little Russian Board under a Governor-
General was established in its place, which meant the substitution of a real
for a personal union. In 1775 followed the suppression of the Saporog
Cossack Constitution of Sich; the entire civil administration passed
into the hands of the imperial authorities, and the Cossacks thenceforth
ceased to exist as a distinct nationality. They siu'vived, however, as a
distinct class, whose part it now became to serve Russia by securing the
annexation of the Crimea and the newly acquired position on the Black
Sea. In order to reconcile the landowners of Little Russia to her policy,
Catharine carried into effect a measure abrogating freedom of settlement
for Little Russian peasants; in 1783, she introduced serfdom into Little
Russia, where it did not as yet exist, although the local conditions were
of course ripe for its introduction. Naturally, Catharine's measures
could not bridge over the gulf fixed between Great Russians and Little
Russians; they rather tended to widen it. They were designed to
guarantee the predominance of the Russian Tsardom in the south, and,
so far as possible, to weld north and south together, and thereby to
assure its full value to the acquisition of the northern shore of the Black
Sea. This was of course no final solution of the Ukrainian problem,
which Catharine left it to her successors to achieve* She also bequeathed
to them the Polish question, which indeed she had created for Russia
by means of the Partitions ; whereas the problem of the Ukraine she had
inherited from the past.
The Court of St Petersburg under Catharine owed its special signifi-
cance to the fact that it was the seat of enlightened despotism, incarnate
in a woman of genius. She, and she alone, was the centre of it all ; for
she had not been happy in her marriage and domestic life ; indeed, her
relations to her son and his family were a repetition of what had been
696 Grand Duke Paul. — The Tsarina's favourites. [i762-96
her own lot as Grand Duchess. A growing mistrust and estrangement
prevailed between Catharine and her son Paul, and the bearing of the
Tsarina was at times the reverse of dignified towards the "young Court"
at Gatschina, although, since her position had become strengthened,
Paul was no longer to be regarded as a rival. A deep shadow was
thus cast on the years of Paul's manhood, during which he was deprived
of any sort of power and obliged to keep entirely aloof from public
aflFairs. Paul had married, as his second wife, Maria Feodorovna
(Sophia of Wiirtemberg), who proved a most devoted consort. (This
marriage had been adroitly promoted by Prince Henry of Prussia,
behind whom of course stood Frederick the Great.) Their life was
further embittered by Catharine lavishing her whole affection upon her
grandsons Alexander and Constantine, whom she sought to alienate
from their parents, though without success, notwithstanding that she
brought the whole weight of her general interest in educationial matters
to bear upon the training of these princes. Nor, as has been seen,
did she achieve her purpose of making Alexander her successor to the
throne in place of his father.
The cleavage within the family was maintained and aggravated by
the uninterrupted succession of favourites who shared the Tsarina's
political labours and obtruded themselves between her and the members
of her family. Her son and grandson always remained aloof from this
innermost circle of her life. Little need here be said about her systematic
favouritism, which, of course, provided ample field for all manner of
scandal and has often been exclusively emphasised to the exclusion of all
else in delineations of her character. For, though the political influence
of Potemkin, and subsequently of Plato Suboff, was undoubtedly great,
not one of all her many favourites can be said to have ever dominated
the Tsarina. Intellectually, she was the superior of every one of
them, and she never allowed her heart to influence her against her better
judgment. The material prosperity of Russia was, no doubt, seriously
affected by the gross selfishness of these men, on whom their mistress
heaped gifts and whom she enabled to enrich themselves at the public
expense. None of them, however, exercised any political influence in
the wider sense; whatever be the estimate formed of Catharine's rule
and its results, to her alone belongs the praise or blame. Favouritism
brought up both good and evil sides of her nature ; in it she found vent
both for that feminine capacity for self-devotion pent up within her and
frustrated by her wretched marriage, and for unrestrained and unmiti-
gated sensuality. She really loved Gregori Orloff, to whose devotion she
owed her Crown, and Potemkin, who was indolent and utterly selfish
in spite of all his great gifts, but whose strange individuality may
have exercised upon this rationalist Princess the peculiar charm of the
" Russian soul." These blemishes are inseparable from any portrait of
Catharine; but they should not be allowed to overshadow all else.
1762-96] Princess Dashkoff.-Eminent servants of the Crown. 697
The feminine element of ^ Catharine's Court was very much in the
background as compared with her male favourites, the single prominent
exception being Princess DashkoiF, whose interesting Memoirs exhibit the
impression produced by Catharine's personality upon those who were
capable of understanding it. She was congenial to the Tsarina on
account of her great intellectual interests and her virile qualities of
energy and force of will. She played a unique part among the Russian
ladies of that day ; she was President of the Russian Academy of Sciences,
and it was in no small degree due to her that its Dictionary was compiled.
The Princess had. stood beside Catharine in her hour of good fortune,
when the coup cTitat had been successful ; but she was unable, chiefly
through her own fault, to maintain herself in the position to which she
aspired, and she certainly exerted no strong political influence upon her
mistress.
The same remark applies more or less to the whole bevy of govern-
ment officers, diplomats and generals gathered about the Tsarina —
statesmen such as Nikita Panin and Besborodko, public officials such as
Viasemski, Chernuisheff", Sievers, diplomats like Repnin, VorontsofF, Dmitri
Galitsin, generals like Alexander Galitsin, Peter Panin, Rumyantsefl',
Suvoroff'. They were one and all, in varying degrees, the intelligent
and energetic instruments of her will, but nothing further. She was
extraordinarily skilful in training her officers and her army, and, above
all, in drawing out diplomatic talent ; and, if she was unable to secure
like efficiency in her civil service, the fault was not entirely hers. But
what is characteristic of her reign is that the circle of her Court supplied
the entire body of persons with whom and through whom she carried
on the task of government. The work of these generals and statesmen
was in the main court service, and the whole national and political
life of the country centred in the Court. And an amazingly brilliant
centre it was. The excessive luxury which reigned everywhere at Coiu-t
was the more obtrusive in character because unrestrained by any refine-
ment of taste; indeed, there was often a frankly barbarous and oriental
flavour about it. Far and wide in Europe admiration was aroused by
the exotic splendour of the lavish entertainments of Catharine and
her favourites. The extravagance which prevailed was boundless ; but
outside Russia hardly anyone noticed or knew how heavy a burden
was thus laid upon the nation.
The general aspect and tone of the Court was thoroughly French ; it
was evident that the presiding genius was a lady of French culture, and
no longer Peter the Great with his guard-room manners. A leading
part was played in this brilliant society by foreigners, such, for example,
as the French ambassador, Count Segur, and that typical rococo courtier.
Prince de Ligne, who lacked the capacity for becoming a commander or a
statesman, but who was an elegant and an accomplished causeur such as
Catharine loved to fence with in conversation, and with whom she long
CB. XIX.
698 Catharine II 's relations with literature. [i762-96
kept up a correspondence. For Russia it was of moment that the Court
of St Petersburg thus imparted a French character to the members of the
Russian nobility so far as they came into contact with it ; and these were
the men at the head of army and administration^ Thus, a Russian
Empress of German blood and French culture accomplished organically
what Peter had begun externally, namely, the separation of the governing
classes from the governed. The Russian nation consisted from tlie
reign of Catharine of an upper stratum with foreign culture and
manners and a bed-rock composed of those who adhered to the old
mode of living. This upper stratum of society was heterogeneous
in character, being a combination of the corrupt culture of the ancien
regime with Russian barbarism ; it was at the same time utterly degene-
rate in tendency. The immense danger to the whole nation involved in
this line of development was lost to view in the dazzling splendour of
the Court, which was at the same time a centre of intellectual life.
Catharine introduced the salon into Russia, and allowed liberty of
criticism there. Derschavin composed his odes in her honour. She
encouraged Wisin, the "Russian Moliere," to satirise society in his
comedies. With her reign is associated the first bloom, as it were, of
intellectual life ; and in these endeavours the Tsarina bore an active part
herself, besides promoting and encouraging them.
Catharine was a prolific writer, and delighted in her work. Reference
has already been made to her political and literary correspondence (with
Grimm, Voltaire, Diderot, d'Alembert). She displayed great talent in her
letters, which were written not only with the direct intention of influenc-
ing public opinion in Europe, but from a real interest in the intellectual
movement of her day, of which she was an enthusiastic disciple. The
richness and versatility of her mind, the diversity of her interests, and
her charming talent for causerie and witty banter, find full and delight-
ful expression in her letters. She was keenly interested in literature,
science, and art, and endeavoured often with considerable tact to play
the r6le of a Maecenas. On the other hand, she probed for herself subtle
questions of history, philology and political economy, wrote on these
subjects, and stimulated research in them. She produced the Nakas and
composed her Memoirs, besides contributing to a periodical edited by
Princess Dashkoff, in which the Tsarina gave free play to her satirical
gifts and caprices in a column reserved for her. More than this, she was
a dramatic poet in her own right, whose works, in the last edition of
them, fill four large volumes. Her plays were actually put on the stage,
their authorship being concealed to a certain extent from the Russian
public, but not from her foreign correspondents. Her writings (comedies,
stories, librettos, proverbs) are no literary masterpieces — the comedies
alone possessing interest ; in these she satirises the freemasons, the
Cagliostro craze, etc. Catharine herself regarded her literary efforts
solely as a hobby ; " I look upon my writings as play," she wrote to
1762-96] Personality of Catharine II. 699
Grimm. They certainly bear the stamp of dilettantism, and cannot, as
to seriousness and depth, bear comparison with the literary prodVictions
of Frederick the Great. But they exhibit her mental freshness, wealth,
and versatility, after a fashion assuredly unique among female sovereigns
of modem times.
The older Catharine grew, the more reactionary she became on this
head also. The surface splendour of her reign could not conceal its deep
defects ; criticism was excited ; and she became more and more suspicious
and severe, whenever she scented in Russian authors tendencies towards
political and social reforms. Her reign furnishes a startling contrast
between the patronage of literature and science at Court, on the one
hand, and, on the other, the cruel treatment of Radishcheff and the
persecution inflicted on Novikoff' at Moscow. Catharine was in theory a
disciple of the Aufkldrung, and in practice an absolute monarch.
It would be difficult, indeed impossible, to characterise in a word
so rich and varied a nature as Catharine's; but she might perhaps be
described as a " political woman." For a woman, she had a singularly
strong political sense and notable theoretical insight into the conditions
of existence for a State and the duties of a monarch. Her policy
was, therefore, a thoroughly practical policy in the selfish interests of
Russia, devoid of all moral scruples or sentiment. There was no mystical
side to her nature; she was entirely dominated by a clear, rationalist
intelligence. In political matters, she was not affected in the slightest
degree by her own feelings, nor did she allow herself to be confused by
the flattery lavished upon her or diverted for a single moment from the
pursuit of her political aims. At the same time, she never lost her grasp
of the situation or her courage, so that this aspect of her character is
absolutely masculine; Prince de Ligne was not without justification in
saluting her as ^'■Catherine le grand.''''
But this Princess, whose virile personality becomes especially manifest
if she is compared with Maria Theresa, was, nevertheless, a thorough
woman — not the virago of the Renaissance to which she has been likened,
nor yet, despite her sins and shortcomings, an ordinary example of female
frailty. There are many testimonies from which to choose ; perhaps the
best is the Diary of Chrapovitzki, her private secretary, which givies a
true picture of Catharine as she really was and as she appeared in every-
day life. It shows a woman full of merits and failings ; bright and active,
with sanguine temperament and very variable moods, sometimes arbitrary
and often supremely vain, and with a strong propensity for praising
and for being praised. Touches are not wanting of real womanly kind-
ness and motherliness in her care of her grandsons or in her letters to a
young lady at the Fraiileinstifi (school for young ladies of the nobility).
At close quarters, there is nothing majestic to be found in her. She had
a feminine charm and lovableness of her own, the attraction of which
was felt by all diplomatists who conversed with her, and of which she
700 The significance of Catharine's personality and rule, [ivea-se
made good use for obtaining her own way. And this same imperial lady
was so little able to curb her warm-blooded passions that her love affairs,
especially as she grew older, became public scandals.
In dealing historically with an absolute ruler who regards the State
and the personality of the sovereign as identical, it is not easy to differen-
tiate precisely between what appertains to the one and to the other. No
certain estimate can accordingly be formed as to the objective significance
of Catharine's reign, and the problem remains unsolved by accepting as an
adequate definition of her character and reign such a formula as " the
search for glory, supplemented by self-indulgence." Catharine recognised
the objective ends laid down by Peter the Great, and felt herself to be
continuing the rule of that monarch, whom her heart revered as a hero
and whom her reason bade her follow for practical purposes, foreign
usiu^er though she was. She achieved so large a part of his design that
there could be no ultimate turning back for the Russian nation, and that
the policy of Russia was indissolubly bound up with European interests
and questions. Under her, St Petersburg became the real capital of the
empire. She brought about the union of the Baltic Provinces and Poland
with Russia, thus securing a position for her country as a European
Power. She changed the face of the Oriental question in the same way
and definitely fixed the southern frontier of the empire. Thus, she
acquired (according to Storch's estimate) over 500,000 square versts
(= 219,704 square miles) of territory for her empire and an addition of
nearly seven million subjects. Her policy was prompted not only by
personal ambition, but by a sense of responsibility for her country and
people. Under her, Russia fully developed into a European Power, whose
prestige and sphere of influence abroad she increased enormously, while
at home systematic centralisation had firmly established its authority.
The direct gains and the general results of her reign were, therefore,
enormous, and found unmistakable expression in the enhanced national
confidence of Russia.
The Tsarina was hailed as standard-bearer of the Aufklarung and of
liberty in Russia by contemporary writers generally, more especially
those of France. Peter had not more than a simple instinctive sense
of being a European, and had accordingly wished to make Europeans
of his people, who had not yet passed beyond the Asiatic stage of
civilisation ; Catharine, on the other hand, was a European by birth and
education and stood in close relation with the great intellectual move-
ment of her time. But, amid the chorus of praise bestowed upon her,
Europe easily overlooked the fact that this brilliant reign had achieved
virtually nothing towards the advance of European civilisation among
the mass of the Russian people; Her thirty-four years' reign is
ostensibly the second and decisive stage in the historic process of
" Europeanising " Russia begun by Peter I. As a matter of fact, she
left it to her successors to solve the second part of the great problem
1762-96] Results of the reign. 701
with which Peter had begun to grapple, and to accomplish the internal
metamorphosis of Russia into a European State. For it is a mistake to
maintain that ideas of humanity and the rights of man came to Russia
with Catharine ; these conceptions, for which she professed such enthu-
siasm, had very little to do with the actual course of affairs in Russia.
Moreover, this German Princess, with her cosmopolitan and rationalist
views, was utterly alien to the nation, and in herself promoted the
Germanisation of the Romanoffs and with it their estrangement from
the Russian people. So much she achieved: that at the time of her death
the upper class had the outward semblance of Europeans in the externals
of life, in dress and speech, and, finally, in their ideals of culture. But
the common people acclaimed Paul; they rebelled against this rigime
in Pugachoff's insurrection and in many other risings; they lived on
in their old stolid barbarism, separated by a broad gulf from their
sovereign and the upper strata. For them, the only result of this reign
was that the institution of serfdom was developed to the full, and that
the process of depriving the vast majority of Russians of all rights was
thereby completed. Thus, the cleavage already existing between the
ruling class and the people was further widened under Catharine, while
the first beginnings of internal reform and of the reconciliation of con-
flicting elements attempted by her remained wholly barren. There are
many points of resemblance between Catharine and Elizabeth Tudor,
although the Tsarina was assuredly the more gifted of the pair. The
likeness does not however hold good in this respect: it could not be said
of the Tsarina, as it could of the English Queen, that the pulses of
sovereign and people beat in unison. A great historical idea was the
basis of Elizabeth's rule, whereas the necessary historical tasks which
Catharinei's policy had to perform implied only the announcement of an
idea, but not the expression of it. Nevertheless, her reign with all its
defects was one of the greatest in the annals of Russia, and she herself
among the most notable monarchs of history — a Princess whose virtues
far outweighed her shortcomings. She was, every inch, a "political
being" unmatched by anyone of her sex in modern history, and yet
at the same time a thorough woman and a great lady. She died on
November 17, 1796.
702
CHAPTER XX.
FREDERICK THE GREAT AND HIS SUCCESSOR.
(1, HOME AND FOREIGN POLICY.
(1763-97.)
After the Treaty of Hubertusburg, the King of Prussia found him-
self, diplomatically, in an exceedingly difficult position. There was no
thought of dissolving the Austro-French alliance, for Vienna and PaHs
were united in the conviction that Frederick was only watching his
opportunity to overthrow completely the Constitution of the Empire.
Between the Courts of Versailles and Potsdam personal animosity ran so
high that for years no renewal of diplomatic relations between France
and Prussia could be brought about. Frederick hardly stood on a better
footing with George HI of England and Hanover than with Louis XV.
In his capacity of Elector of Hanover more especially, George entertained
the most violent feelings of antipathy against the King of Prussia, as the
adversary of the existing distribution of power in Germany. •
The bitter antagonism between Prussia and Austria, the cause of
their seven years' conflict in arms, continued with but little abatement,
despite the restoration of diplomatic relations between the two Courts.
Prince Kaunitz speciously suggested to the Prussian charge d'affaires
in Vienna the possibility of agreeing upon a disarmament — say, on
the lines that each Power should discharge seventy-five per cent, of the
soldiers who had been in her service at the time of the Peace of
Hubertusburg. Commissioners might be appointed to see that such
an agreement was conscientiously carried out. Frederick, however,
would have nothing to do with Kaunitz' plan of disarmament, observing
that it savoured somewhat of the ideas of the Abbe de Saint-Pierre.
In April, he entered into a defensive alliance with Russia. While
Catharine II was openly undermining the Polish Republic, she was attacked
by the Turks, who rightly surmised that it would be their turn next to
be swallowed up by Russia. Throughout the Russo-Turkish War, which
lasted six years, Frederick II had, according to the terms of his compact
with the Tsarina, to pay her an annual subsidy of 400,000 roubles
1769-78] Frederick ITs designs upon Saxony. 703
(.£72,000), which he could ill spare in drawing up his budget. On the
other heind, the complication in south-eastern Europe was in so far to
his advantage, that it led the Court of Vienna to incline more towards
Prussia. At the end of August, 1769, the Emperor Joseph visited the
King of Prussia, at Neisse in Silesia ; and Frederick returned the visit in
September, 1770, spending a few days with Joseph at Neustadt in Moravia.
Meanwhile, at St Petersburg, King Frederick had proposed the
partition of Poland, allotting to Austria eastern Galicia only (not western,
which borders on Silesia). In order to forestall Prussia's prospective
claims to this district, the Austrians in 1769 and 1770 occupied, as
Frederick expressed it, " a region twenty miles long, from the county of
Saros to the Silesian frontier." Their troops, instead of halting here,
were spreading thertoselves slowly but surely over the whole of the south-
west of Poland ; and this fact induced the Tsarina at length to adopt
Frederick's plan for the partition of Poland, which appeared to her a
very critical step, and which she had opposed for some time. Frederick
acquired West Prussia — the territorial link between East Prussia and the
main body of the monarchy ; and the increase in his revenues permitted
of his raising the numbers of his standing army from 160,000 to 186,000
men. At the same time, he unintermittently continued his efforts for
the acquisition of Saxony. In this he was now, as before, opposed by all
the Powers, even by his ally Russia, who, in order to disturb his designs,
made a new move by proposing that the Russo-Prussian alliance should
be expanded into a great coalition of the north. In the first place, the
Tsarina and he were to join with England and Hanover; and then,
"as more passive members," HoUand, the Scandinavian States, and "some
German States like Saxony," were to be admitted to the coalition. But
this insidious scheme was promptly rejected by Frederick.
At the close of 1777, a good opportunity appeared to offer itself
to him for gaining possession of at least some parts of Saxony.
The Elector Frederick Augustus III of Saxony, son of the sister of
the late Elector Maximilian Joseph of Bavaria, laid claim to the
freehold property left by his uncle, estates valued by him at several
millions. The new Elector of Bavaria, Charles Theodore, who like
his predecessor had no legitimate issue, but wished to provide for his
bastards, was keenly interested in this property — much more so than
in the electorate. In order to secure the protection of the head of the
Empire against Saxony, Charles Theodore resigned part of Bavaria to
the Emperor Joseph (January, 1778); but a protest against this dis-
memberment of the Bavarian electorate was raised by Uuke Charles of
Zweibriicken, who stood first in the succession to it. His cause and that
of Frederick Augustus III were espoused by King Frederick ; and, though
formerly sworn enemies to each other, Prussia and Saxony formed an
alliance against Austria. Sixty thousand Prussians under Prince Henry
marched into Saxony, where they Were joined by 21,000 Saxon troops;
704 Frederick's Lusatian scheme. [i778
while the Prussian main army of 80,000 men, commanded by the King
in person, concentrated in Silesia.
The Austrians, under the command of the Emperor Joseph and
Laudon, mustered in Bohemia. They were greatly inferior in numbers
to the Prussians; and, consequently, no strong hopes of victory were
entertained- on the Austrian side. The King of Prussia, however, had no
desire to fight for the integrity of Bavaria, of which, indeed, he proved
to be quite willing to allow Austria to annex a province. . But, as the
price of his consent, he demanded some compensation ; and negotiations
to that end were carried on under arms.
At this time, it seemed as if the line of Margraves of Ansbach-
Baireuth would become extinct at no remote date — an event which
actually happened in a few decades. This dynasty was a branch of the
House of Brandenburg, which possessed an incontestable reversionary
right to the south German principalities in question. The King of
Prussia, accordingly, planned that homage should be done in Ansbach
and Baireuth to the Elector Frederick Augustus III, whose right of
succession there would thus be recognised. On the other hand, Lusatia,
a considerable section of the Saxon dominions, was to swear allegiance
to the King of Prussia, together with Wittenberg, the cradle of the
Protestant faith, and other possessionb of the House of Wettin on the
right bank of the Elbe.
The Dresden Court did not reject these proposals, but demanded
that, besides Ansbach and Baireuth, Prussia should secure to Saxony
part of the Bavarian Upper Palatinate, or the bishopric of Bamberg,
or Erfurt, which belonged to the Archbishop of Mainz. Once more,
the Saxon statesmen sought protection against their new and highly
dangerous ally at St Petersburg; Baron von Sacken, the Saxon am-
bassador to Catharine II, affirming that Russia might now play the
" great and flattering part " which Louis XIV and his successors had in
their time played in Germany. On the other hand, Saxony could in
no wise depend upon Austria, the former champion of Saxon integrity
against Frederick, but now prepared to let Prussia indemnify herself
out of the possessions of the House of Wettin, provided that the
Austrian dominions could be rounded off at the expense of the Wittels-
bachs. By means of a compromise of this sort, it was confidently
anticipated on the Austrian side that war with Prussia would be avoided.
"The King's inclination to wage war is very slight," Joseph wrote from
his headquarters to Vienna; "but his desire for Lusatia is all the stronger."
The two German Great Powers could, however, arrive at no final settle-
ment in the details of their plans of annexation. No adequate explana--
tion has yet been offered of Frederick's special reasons for ultimately
breaking off the negotiations carried on for months between himself and
the Austrians, and declaring war. In any case, the political and military
situation was very favourable to Prussia. Louis XVI declared himself
1778] War of the Bavarian Succession. 705
neutral, because it was Austria who had virtually assumed the offensive;
Russia was the ally of Prussia, who was actively supported by Saxony
and morally by almost all the Princes of the Empire, apprehensive as
they were, for the moment, of Joseph's territorial greed rather than of
Frederick's. Altogether, therefore, the chances of the latter were far
more promising in 1778 than they had been in 1756.
At the beginning of July, the main body of the Prussian army
crossed the mountain range between Silesia and Bohemia at NaishcJd.
But thfe invasion came to an immediate standstill. The main body of
the Emperor's army stood on the Upper Elbe. It was commanded
nominally by Joseph, but in reality by Lacy, who in the Seven Years'
War had been quartermaster-general to Dauri (now dead). The centre
of the Austrian formation was Jaromircz, where a triple line of redoubts,
extending the whole length of the river as far as Koniggratz, had been
constructed and ah immense amount of heavy artillery stationed.
Austrian tactics had obviously profited by the experiences of the Seven
Years' War, which had proved that defensive operations promised the
Austrian army the best chances of success. ■
Once before — in 1758 — Austrians and Prussians had been drawn up
in the neighboinrhood of Koniggratz, and had stood there face to face
for weeks, without Frederick II venturing to attack his foes in their
trenches. On the present occasion, he remained inactive for fully three
months, from the middle of July to the middle of October, on the
borderland between Bohemia and Silesia south of the' Giant Mountains,
never once attempting a serious engagement with the enemy. The
statement that he did not really mean to make war, and merely wished
to carry on " armed negotiations," is quite erroneous : on the contrary,
he was, with a view to facilitating the negotiations, awaiting the
opportunity for a " good battle."
While the main body of the Austrians lay facing towards Silesia,
a smaller Imperial army, with Laudon at its head, was watching the
passes leading from Saxony and Lusatia into Bohemia. Along this
extensive frontier there were far too many passes for Laudon to be able
to prevent the entry of Prussians and Saxons into Bohemia. His chance
of covering the whole frontier line was rendered still more remote by the
exceptional mobility and endurance of the Prussian troops ;' and Prince
Henry, who was one of the most distinguished strategists of the age,
succeeded in marching into Bohemia a few weeks after his royal brother.
Descending by the right bank of the Elbe, he touched Bohemian soil at
Hainspach, where the difficulties of crossing the mountains were enormous.
However, the defiles once safely left behind. Prince Henry's chances were
very promising, the Austrians being numerically far weaker. Laudon
had to retreat beyond the Iser ; but even in this position he could not
hope to hold out long. By this time the whole fighting force of the
Austrians had come between two fires ; Prince Henry was advancing on
G. U. H. VI. CB. XX. 45
706 Failure of the Prussian campaign in Bohemia. [i778
their left wing and placing it in imminent danger of being outflanked,
while their right was threatened by the Prussian main army.
On August 10 Prince. Henry wrote to the King of Prussia that
his operations would be in time if completed by the 20th or 22nd ; after
that, lack of forage would make it necessary for Prince Henry's force
to retreat upon Lusatia. Frederick would not have been a great genej-al
if he had not determined to cooperate most vigorously with Henry
during those precious ten or twelve days. He meant to attempt to
cross the Elbe at Amau and thus reach the Emperor Joseph's rear. The
depression felt in the Austrian headquarters was profound. The King
estimated the strength pf his adversaries at Arnau and Hohenelbe at
30,000 men. "If fortune still favours the aged," he wrote to his
brother, " I hope soon to defeat this porps." At Tumau he then ex-
pected to effect a junction with Prince Henry's army.
Frederick's preparations for action lasted till August 25, that is to
say, beyond, the term up to which Prince Henry had thought that he
could procure fodder for his horses in the region of Niemes. However,
this delay was of no consequence, for the Prince, a master of mancEUvring
operations, managed to hold out considerably longer in front of the Iser.
But, on August 25, Frederick finally gave up his designs of attacking,
recognising that the enemy's position at Hohenelbe weis far too strong to
be forced. After this, he made up his mind that the campaign was lost.
For the rest, he had already a week earlier told his Foreign Minister,
Count Finkenstein, that he felt no particular confidence in the success of
the advance on Arnau, and that, should it fail, Russia alone could help
him by creating a diversion which would set his army free.
The inevitable consequence of this ill success was that the Emperor
Joseph, who heid twice already sent reinforcements to Laudon during the
seven weeks of Frederick's manoeuvring in Bohemia, now despatched a third
detachment to the Iser. Any action on the part of Prince Henry was
thus out of the question; and both the Prussian armies thenceforth con-
fined themselves to the "potato war" — that is, they consumed the resources
of the enemy's country, till the cold weather set in and forced them to
terminate their inglorious campaign by evacuating Bohemia. It was
Moravia, not Bohemia which Frederick had originally intended to invade,
If the main army of the Prussians had, nevertheless, entered Bohemia,
this had been in consequence of Prince Henry's advice, whose plan of
campaign, as the King extravagantly expressed it, seemed to him inspired
by some divinity. But, though devised and prepared by two strategists
of such eminence, the Bohemian invasion of 1778 had collapsed — just as
that of 1757 had failed after brilliant initial successes. It is quite
uncertain whether Frederick would have achieved any better result by an
attack on Moravia. This, too, he had once before attempted under very
favourable conditions (the Austrians having been almost annihilated at
Leuthen in the preceding year) ; yet he had been obliged to abandon the
1778-9] Peace of Teschen. 707
siege of Olmiitz without attaining his object, The strategy of Frederick's
age was much stronger in the defensive than in the offensive. He had
wrested Silesia from Austria at a time when Maria Theresa's reforms
had not yet developed the Austrian military system, while a formidable
coalition was threatening her monarchy. His subsequent campaigns,
carried on for the purpose of occupying Austrian territory, whether
directed against Bohemia or Moravia, ended without exception in failiu-e.
Despite his sixty-six years, Frederick was still physically well fitted
for war; in the recent campaign he had been in the saddle for many
hours daily. But he felt little inclination for a renewal of military
operations, after it had become evident that his Russian allies would not
comply with his summons to attack Galicia. Prussia had declared war,
not Austria ; and, therefore, Catharine argued that her defensive alliance
with Frederick did not bind her to give him military assistance. What
weighed more with the Tsarina than this formal questioji was that she
saw no reason for handing over Lusatia to the foremost military
Power of eastern Europe and thus materially increasing its strength.
Without an ally, however, an attack on the monarchy of the Habsburgs
was hopeless, as the experience of the campaign of 1778 had proved.
Frederick, therefore, consented to relinquish once more the attempt to
acquire Saxon territory. In the Peace concluded at Teschen in May, 1779,
thi-ough the mediation of France and Russia, Frederick Augustus III
received 4^000,000 thalers (^"600,000) from Charles Theodore in satis-
faction of the Saxon claims to the freehold property of the late Elector
Maximilian Joseph. There was no question at Teschen of any exchange
of Saxon territory for the Ansbach-Baireuth lands of the House of
Brandenburg ; so that the Saxons had successfully disengaged themselves
from the friendly demonstrations of their Prussian ally without being
stifled in his embrace. The Elector of Saxony might regard it as a
guarantee for the future that by the Treaty of Teschen Russia had
secured protective rights over the Germanic Imperial Constitution, just
as a similar authority had already been conceded to her in Poland and
Sweden with regard to the Constitutions of those countries ; and it had
become more difficult than before for the King of Prussia to round off his
monarchy at the expense of any Prince of the Empire.
The Austrians were justly dismayed, in 1778, by Frederick's un-
expected declaration of war, and now fully realised that they were not
strong enough to effect conquests against the King of Prussia's will.
On the representations of France and Russia they, therefore, agreed to
evacuate the regions of Bavaria which they had occupied, with the single
exception of the Innviertel. This was a district of inconsiderable size ;
but the Prussian Foreign Minister, Ewald Friedrich von Hertzberg,
implored his sovereign not to allow the principle of the integrity of
Bavaria to be violated in even the smallest degree. To this Frederick
replied that Hertzberg's ideas were excellent, but that political business
CH. XX. 46 — 2
708 Isolation of Prussia. — The Furstenbund. [i780-6
could not be managed by ideas alone; the question was whether they
could be carried out.
About this time, Frederick's alliance with the Tsarina begau to givie
way. One of the first symptoms of a change in the policy of Russia, at
once noticed by the King, was that the Tsarina did not reply personally
to an autograph letter from him, but answered it through her private
secretary. The Poles, whom Catharine treated as her proUgis, com-
plained incessantly at St Petersburg of the ruinous way in which Prussia
had set herself to worry their only seaport, Danzig. Diplomatic ex-
planations thus began between Potsdam and St Petersburg, which led to
nothing. At Vienna, Kaunitz had been for some time under the correct
impression that Frederick was aiming at the possession of Great Poland
— ^that is to say, Danzig, Thorn, and the districts which now form the
Prussian province of Posen. In Russia, Potemkin endeavoured to get
at the bottom of King Frederick's plans by hinting to the Prussian
ambassador at St Petersburg that Russia might find it expedient to join
with Prussia in putting an end to the Polish State. Frederick replied
by proposals at the Russian Cdutt for admitting to the Russo-Prussian
alliance the Ottoman empire, for which the Tsarina wished to substitute
a Greek empire under her grandson Cbnstantine. Catharine intervened
all the more strongly on behalf of the ill-used Danzigets, while Frederick
would not yield an iiich.
The aged King found himself once more diplomatically isolated,
when, in 1780, Catharine definitively deserted him, and concluded her
alliance with Joseph against Turkey. But such was the admirably con-
solidated strength of his monarchy that he might at any time expect to
secure new allies. When the Emperor Joseph, hot content with the vista
of Eastern conquests, resumed his policy of expansion within the Empire,
the German States, whose independent sovereignty and very existence
were threatened, rallied round the King of Prussia. Thxis, in July, 1785,
shortly before Frederick's death, was brought about the Furstenbund
(Confederation of Princes) ; the Archbishop of Mainz, the Elector of
Saxony, George III as Elector of Hanover, with many other German
Princes, both Protestant and Catholic, ranging themselves under the
leadership of Prussia. Frederick the Great had often expressed his just
contempt for the Constitution of the Teutonic Empire; but now, as
against the actual designs of annexation cherished at Vienna, he, at
the head of the Furstenbund, powerfully represented the Protestant
interest, and was hailed as the champion of universal freedom by German
public opinion, which was mainly determined by the Protestants as the
intellectually more alert moiety of the nation.
At the same time, Prussia's relations ^ith France and England
improved. Frederick now considered his position so favourable for new
conquests in Poland that, of the European Governments, his alone was
working against the preservation of the general peace. Among the
1786-90] Intervention in Holland and alliance with England. 709
representatives of the Eurppean Powers at the Golden Horn, the
Prussian envoy alone tried to provoke the Turks to an armed resistance
against the definitive establishment of Russian domination in the Crimea.
Frederick was extremely dissatisfied when the Porte, instead, concluded
the Treaty of A'mali Kavak, by which the Kuban and the Crimea were
ceded to Russia.
In the midst of the pla,nning about Poland, Frederick the Great
died, on August 17, 1786. He was succeeded by his nephew, Frederick
William II, who was then approaching his forty^third year.
At midsummer, 1787, there ensued the declar^^tion of war by the
Porte against Russia, which the deceased King had so eagerly desired,
Austria joining in the war in support of her ally, Russia. Ip his foreign
policy Frederick William II was advised by Hertzberg, who (with
Finkenstein) had directed the same department under Frederick II. In
accordance with the late King's ideas, Hertzberg hoped to utilise the
complication in the East to obtain possession of Danzig, Thorn, and
Poland between the lower Vistula and the town of Posen. Now, to
carry out a policy of this sort, some alliance was needful to Prussia, at
that time isolated except for the Furstenhwnd. The choice fell on
England, whose King as Elector of Hanover belonged to that league.
In order to gain over the Cabinet of St James' to his Polish policy,
Frederick William, in the autumn of 1787, sent an army into Holland,
where the party of the patriots, who were friendly to France, was
oppressing the supporters of the Stadholder, William V of Orange,
who were adherents of England. The intervention of Prussia in the
Netherlands had a romantic as well as a political origin. The Princess
of Orange (Wilhelmina), a sister of the King of Prussia, had been
treated so disrespectfully by her political opponents that her royal
brother felt himself bound to insist upon signal reparation. But the
chief object of the Prussian Government remained the establishment of
a close relation between Prussia and England; and this was actually
attained by the despatch of 24,000 Prussian troops whose campaign,
though almost bloodless, was thoroughly successful. At midsummer,
1788, the defensive Alliance of Berlin was concluded, by the secret articles
of which Prussia and Great Britain imdertook to act in concert with
regard to the Eastern troubles, while, in the event of a war with the
Tsarina, Frederick William might claim the assistance of the English fleet.
Frederick the Great had expressed to Finkenstein his intention, when
Russia should have been exhausted by a few campaigns against the
Turks, to begin preparations for war, and by threats of hostilities to
bring about the Tsarina's acquiescence in his Polish policy. Seven
years later, Frederick William II actu?illy carried out this plan, except
that the Prussian preparations were directed in the first instance against
Austria: — ^not against Russia, whose turn was to come afterwards. In
May, 1790, a large Prussian army mustered in Silesia. In consequence
710 Beichenbach Convention. — Expansion of Prussia, [iies-so
of the reforms of Joseph II, the Austrian Netherlands had revolted
against the Austrian Government, while the Hungarians refused to supply
troops or render other services to the Emperor, and threatened rebellion.
In face of these difficulties, Leopold II, who had ascended the Austrian
throne on the death of his brother Joseph, had to agree, in June, 1790,
to the Convention of Reichenbach with Prussia. The Austrians re-
nounced the acquisition of Turkish territory, thus forfeiting the results
of two exhausting campaigns on the Danube. Prussia had no objection
to a slight readjustment of frontier at Turkey's expense ; but the Con-
vention of Reichenbach provided that the Cabinet of Berlin should in
that case be likewise entitled to demand some compensation — which,
of course, must be in Poland. It has been shown elsewhere how the
Reichenbach Convention led to Prussia's participation in the Revolu-
tionary Wars, and to the Second, as well as the Third, Partition of Poland.
The territorial acquisitions of Prussia between the close of the Seven
Years' War and the death of ^Frederick William II increased her popu-
lation from four and a half to nearly seven and a half millions, and the
growth of the State in area was relatively even greater. The Prussian
Government owed this remarkable expansion to negotiation rather
than to force of arms, and the diplomatic prestige of Prussia was very
largely due to the results of Frederick the Great's home policy. He
laboured Without intermission at the replenishment of his Treasury.
This source had in time of war to supply him with the means for
military operations which the Governments of western Europe raised
by means of war loans; and to it the Prussians looked to save them
from the necessity of carrying on wai: by the aid of foreign subsidies,
like Austria, Russia, and the smaller States of Europe. After the
Treaty of Hubertusburg, the Royal Exchequer still contained nominally
14>^ miHion thqlers (,£2,175,000); but this sum of money consisted
largely of coin enormously depreciated in value, which Frederick had put
in circulation during the war. Thirteen years later, all the bad money
was withdrawn from the Treasury, and a resei-ve put by of 23^ millions
(£8,525,000) in coinage of full weight. At the death of Frederick the
Great, the Exchequer contained 51 million thdlers (£7,650,000), as
against an annual revenue of barely 22 millions (£3,36o,000). An
English Government of the present day which should propose to lay by
two and a third times the yearly revenue of the State would have to
deposit £336,000,000. Frederick the Great had to pursue an unflinch-
ing, not to say oppressive, fiscal policy in order to save iip out of the
surplus of the yearly budget so huge a reserve, unparalleled in the
history of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. As to the fiscal
burdens of the country, the second half of his reign (1763 to 1786) com-
pares very unfavourably in this respect with the first (1740 to 1763).
The reorganisation of the coinage system furnished the King with an
1763-86] Coinage and revenue. 711
early opportunity of applying inexorably the strictest principles of a
one-sided fiscalism. After 1764 better money was again minted; but
the debased coinage issued during the war was henceforth taken by the
royal banks only at its actual (that is, at little more than twenty-five per
cent, of its nominal) value. This sweeping measure was the culmination
of pernicious manipulations which may be compared to the national
bankruptcies of Louis XIV and Louis XV. During the war, fines and
imprisonment, or corporal chastisement, had been unhesitatingly inflicted
on persons refusing to accept money utterly debased; tradesmen had
even been punished because they had in despair given up their business
and closed their shops and stalls. The statement, that in 1764 Prussia
returned to a standard of full weight in her coinage, can only be accepted
with considerable qualification. For the reorganisation of the coinage
in that year inundated the country with small coiils, the standard of
which was so greatly lowered by amalgamation with base metals, that a
nominal three ihcHeri worth of this minor currency contained no greater
proportion of silver than that required by law in two thalers. In the
absence of a sufiicient supply of larger coins, small change often had to
be used even for the payment of large amoimts. This unsound practice
did much harm already in Frederick's time and still more under his
successors, to whom he bequeathed, in the guise of a dead weight of base
coin, the obligation of discharging a heavy debt, on which, to be siure,
he had not been obliged to pay any interest.
The mints of the Prussian State were empowered to demand from the
Jews, who bought up the old silver in the country, that they should
supply every year a certain quantity of silver at considerably below the
market price; it being left to them to shift the burden, if they could, on
those who had to part with their family plate. This impost had been
introduced by Frederick once bfefore, aAd abandoned. On this occasion,
when it was considerably ipcreasted and levied afresh from the Jews, it
yielded no more than 23,000 thalers (i&3450) per annum ; but at this
period of his reign the King found no duty too petty or too invidious.
The revenue from stamp duties was more than quadrupled. Even
street bands were obliged henceforth to take out stamped licenses.
About the same time, the receipts from the salt monopoly were
doubled by the introduction of the "salt conscription," as it was termed.
In Europe xhe King of Prussia was called le roi des lisieres (king of
frontiers), on account of the scattered configuration of his kingdom.
There was, consequently, an immense amount of smuggling: A great
deal of smuggled salt, too, was consumed in Prussia. This was now
effectively excluded by the minute regulations of the salt conscription,
which obliged every household to purchase yearly a certain amount of
fiscal salt for the consumption of human beings and cattle.
Frederick II gradually became more and more convinced that the
best means of putting down smuggling and generally increasing his
71? Distribution and increase of taocation. [ives-ss
revenues was to appoint French revenue officers. The French official
class, the pattern of all modern bureaucracies, was still superior to the
Prussian in ability. In 1766, therefore, the King of Prussia appointed
de Launay Generalregisseur {chmi superintendent), at the head of his
customs a,nd excise, ae^ininistratiop, ; and, out of the 2000 posts in these
bijanch^s of thei public service, from 175 to 200 were filled by Frenchmen.
The Postmaster-General (Generali^tencliamit lier Post) was likewise a
Frenchman. An It^liap trained in, French financial administration
organised a lottery, De Launay abolished the tax on rye-flour, and the
duty on pork was at any rate not raised. Rye-bread and pork were the
chief articles of food of the poor and of the soldiers, who had to live on
their very scanty pay and the little they could earn whrai on leave.
Frederick II gave in his adhesion to no religious , creed ; yet, like his
father, he possessed conscience, sense pf duty and feeling for the masses.
The soldiers idolised him, although flogging in the army was, if possible,
even more common and more arbitrary under him than under his father.
But, on the oth,er hand, he cared fpr the material welfare of the private
spldier, shielded him from many an injustice, ^nd, altogether, used
no empty phrase when he called himself the roi des gueux. In this
spirit, he wished to distribute the burden of taxation more fairly than
had hithectp been the case among the several classes ; but his need of
money was so pressing that the promptings of humanity were in the
main abandoned. As not unfrequently happens, de Launay's financial
reforms, amounted in the end. to little more than an increase of taxation.
For, with the exception of pork, all kinds of meat, as \i;ell as beer,
spirits and coffee, were subjected to heavy additional taxation. A
monopoly was laid on tobacco. The prosperity of the people increased
but slow^ly under Frederick II, as it had under his father ; so that it was
a yery long time before his subjects wei'e accustomed to the enhanced
price, of salt, tobacco, coffee, meat, beer, and wine, not to mention the
increase in various other duties. Even six years after the imposition
of the additional duties on meat and alcoholic liquors, we find a high
official — xio doubt reluctantly — urging their withdrawal upon the irascible
King, Tvho rarely brooked contradiction.
In 1779, Frederick II reckoned that the sources of revenue opened
since 1763, apart from money drawn from West Prussia, were yidding
nearly 3 million thalers (d£'450,000). The total public revenue at this
time reached 21 millions a year (^"3,160,000). The check on smuggling
contributed to this thoroughly satisfactory result. The Regie (excise)
introduced on the French model certificates of origin, cockets (plombes),
etc., organised W^odc* of excise officers {douaniers), and set up offices for
them on the frontiers. The whole system was new in Prussia ; hitherto
the whole of the customs had been levied at the gates of the towns.
The native official class had been incapable of adapting to the pjrimitive
conditions obtaining in Prussia institutions which in western Europe
1763-86] Treatment of officers of the army, 713
were the outcome of a very highly developed political and economic
situation. Consequently,, Frederick retained de Launay.for twenty years
as GeneraJregisseur, and preserved the French element geqerally in his
administration during the rest of his reign.
His departure from de Launay's advice in one matter of some fiscal
importance is not likeily to be forgotten. A coffee monopoly had been
introduced, of which the King wished to take advantage (in order to
protect beer-soup) so as to restrict greatly the consumption of coffee in
his dominions. This (though he gave way to some extent) was the
origin of the famous caricature ridiculing him as grinding coffee and
trying to save the beans as they fel,l — which, when he noticed it on a
street wall at Berlin as. he rode past, he ordered to be "hung lower so
that the people need not crane their necks to see it," Much in the
same way, he had said on his accession, when he stopped the interference
of the censorship with the non-political portion of the public journals :
" Newspapers must not be worried if they are to be interesting." Such
declarations, proceeding from such a source, acted as a ferment in the
mental and political development of the contemporary world, England
not excepted. Nevertheless, Frederick's stirring liberal utterances sprang
from the liberalism of a despot — ^however "enlightened." "Pray do not
tell me," said Lessing, "about your Berlin liberty of thought and writing :
it merely consists in the liberty of circulating as many witticisms as you
like against religion." The governing classes of the Prussian nation
perceived no trace pf practical Liberalism in the King. His conduct
towards officers and civil servants was only too often cruel and capricious.
After the Treaty of Hubertusburg, he required heavy pecuniary sacrifices
even from the officei's of the army, who in other respects constituted so
highly privileged a body, and the necessity for filling his Treasury
obliged him to lower the pay of the regimental commanders and captains.
The income of the officers, most of whom were the sons of very poor
noble families, ran short in the case of lieutenants, and was not sufficient
for their needs till they obtained a company. Now, the lieutenants had
lost this chance, while the captains in command of companies found their
reduced pay insdequate.
The author of Letters of an old Prtissicm Officer, Kaltenborn, who
entered the Prussian army in the course of the Seven Years' War,
although he preserved no kindly remembrance of Frederick the Great,
cannot but acknowledge a marked advance in refinement under his
rule in the manners and tone of Prussian officers. The same judgment
no doubt applies to their conceptions of the point cfhonneur. The
moral trustworthiness of military and civil officials, which is taken for
granted in the best administered States of modern Europe, was in the
eighteenth century oi^ly an idea in process of gradual evolution ; and
this moral purification was considerably impeded by Frederick's deference
to fiscal considerations. It was one of the most painful consequences of
Y14: Treatment of dvil officials and judges. [1763-86
the excessive and long-continued financial strain, that the corruptness of
the officers, which had so greatly added to the burden of the " canton-
ment " system under Frederick William I, could not be extirpated under
Frederick II. The officers of the army were, in the words of an ordinance
of Frederick's, "the foremost class in the State." The middle and lower
classes had practically no legal redress even against the worst excesses
committed by officers. On the other hand, Frederick, in agreement with
the extreme views of his father, held the civil servants as a class in far
lower esteem than was their due. " Out of a hundred Kriegsrathe,"" he
wrote, " one can always with a good conscience send ninety-nine to be
hanged, since the chance is small of there being one honest man in the lot."
The hope of the Prussian bureaucracy proved vain, that the King
would in time renounce his predilection for the countrymen of de Launay,
and abandon the Regie, exasperated as he was by the corruptibility of a
large number of its members. The moral defects of the foreign excise
officials were regarded by Frederick with comparative leniency, because
the Frenchmen brought him in money. As his father's son, he knew
how to quell the latent opposition of the native Prussian officials to the
French, more especially as very few of the Presidents, Directors and
Councillors in the various War and Domains Offices throughout his
dominions were men of property, or so much as had sources of income
even in part independent of the Government.
The judges met with a treatment at the hands of the King no
less harsh than that of the administrative officers. Arnold, a water-
miller in the neighbourhood of ZuUichau in the Neumark, did not pay
his rent and was on two occasions condemned to eviction. He petitioned
the King, maintaining that he could not pay, because a carp-pond made
above his mill carried away the water needed for his business. The
King took an interest in the maintenance of the country middle class
which they gratefully appreciated. On this occasion, therefore, he, in
Russian style, sent a colonel to report on the provincial judges. The
colonel decided in favour of the miller. Hereupon, the King entertained
no further doubt but that there existed a conspiracy of aristocrats
between Arnold's landlord and the owner of the carp-pond, on the one
side, and the Neumark judges, on the other, and twice ordered the case
to be tried over again, the second time before the Supreme Court at
Berlin. Both times Arnold was sentenced afresh to eviction^ — and rightly
so, for a saw-mill situated between his property and the carp-pond was
working excellently and not suffering from any shortage of water.
However Frederick II might warp or force justice, he required it to
be strictly maintained by his magistrates. It seemed to him to be in
this case outrageously disregarded. He determined to expose as secret
enemies of public justice those persons who seemed to be thwarting
his efforts for the preservation of the existing distribution of rural
property. Orders were accordingly issued by the King's sovereign
authority declaring that Arnold's sentence of eviction was revised, and
1763-86] NoUUty, bourgeoisie, and peasantry. 716
that the carp-pond should be filled up. Two members of the Supreme
Court were dismissed and thrown into prison. The High Chancellor of
Justice, von Fiirst, at an audience on the subject, ventured to express an
independent opinion on some secondary point ; but he was imperiously
set aside : " Leave the room ; your successor has been appointed."
It is evident that Frederick the Great closely resembled his father in
temperament and character. In the military and administrative institu-
tions of Frederick William I, he made no material change. Consequently,
it was quite impossible for the middle classes to cherish any enthusi-
astic patriotism towards the State as built up on Frederick's lines.
However conscientiously and judiciously he might govern, the system of
the officers' State remained all too illiberal. The nobility, in their turn,
were far from content, but the principle of chivalrous fidelity bound
them to the throne. The personal relation between noblemen and king
was one of the strongest of the invisible buttresses supporting the social
edifice of Prussia, which rested on no common national basis. In re-
cognition of his moral dependence on the nobility, Frederick favoured
them in many ways. He did not scruple to assert that noblemen had
more sense of honour than the bourgeoisie. Commissions in the army
were reserved by him for the nobility, and commoners were only tolerated
as officers in the artillery and in the garrison regiments. The purchase
of manorial estates (Ritterguter) by commoners was forbidden.
The King entertained the opinion that each historic class had its
definite calling, and that disorder arose when one invaded the sphere
of another. He, therefore, opposed the attempts of the nobles to absorb
peasant properties. After the Treaty of Hubertusburg, those peasants who
had been ruined by the hostile invasions received from the King corn for
consumption and for sowing, flour, bread, oxen, horses, sheep, pigs, cows.
In the Neumark alone, where a large part of the population of the plains
lived by wool-spinning and eloth-weaving, 68,866 sheep were distributed.
For the rebuilding of farms and houses destroyed by fire the distressed
peasants and burghers received timber free of charge from the royal
forests, besides som^ ready money. Ten-thousand houses, bams and
sheds were thus rebuilt with the aid of public funds. It is not known
how much this rHdblissement cost the King ; in any case, immediately
on the conclusion of peace millions of thalers were distributed among
citizens, peasants, and noblemen also. These last had been plunged
deep into debt by the war. A two years' respite (moratoriMin) was
accorded to the landowners by the Courts ; but the only result was, as
the King expressed it in his History, to destroy completely the credit of
the " first and most brilliant class of society." In order to assist the
landed aristocracy, the King, from 1767 onwards, increased his extra-
ordinary expenditure by nearly three million thalers (,£'450,000), which
he allotted, partly as gifts and partly as a two per cent, loan, in
Fomerania, Silesia and the Neumark.
716 Agricultural credit societies. — Colonisation. [i763-86
Witb this assistance, highly effectual in itself, a new departure in
organisation was closely connected. In Silesia — for it was here that the
organisation of agricultural credit began — the great landowners as a
company issued shares paying interest. For money so invested the
company was liable to the holders to the extent of the total property
of its members. It then lent out to them the funds entrusted to it;
they had, however, to mortgage their property to the Landschftft, that
is, to the company of great landowners, iportgages being only accepted up
to half the assessed value of each estate. The Silesian large landholders
thus secured easy cjredit. To defray the initial cost of the arrangement,
the, King made over 200,000 ihalers (=£30,000) to the province at two per
cent. Wheui six years afterwards, in 1776, representatives of the Estates
of the Kiymark waited upon the King at Potsdam, he referred to the
agricultural credit. system pf Silesia, and added: "You must imitate
that ; it answers capitally," The deputies objected that there might be
another Thirty Years' War ; when every single great landowner would
be ruined by this general liability. The King replied: "You need
not trouble ^bout that; if the skies fall all the birds will be caught,
and if the end of the world comes we shall all be bankrupt. And,
even if a province were ruined, the King would have tp come to the
rescue, for he and his Estates are one." This encouraging speech of the
sovereign had for its result the formation of the Creditsodetdt (credit
company) of the Kurmark and the Neumark, on a similar basis to that
adopted in Silesia. To this undertaking also the King lent 200,000
ihalers (d6'30,000) at a low rate of interest. In the same way, he assisted
the Pomeranian noblesj who of their own accord asked him for an
institution of agricultural credit. "I will gladly help you," he said,
" for I love the Pomeranians like brothers ; and they could not be loved
better than I love them, for they are brave people who have at all
times helped me in the defence of our country with their purses and
their persons both in the field and at home." Frederick solved an
important problem of true conservative policy by saving his nobles from
usury even at the sacrifice of public money. Moreover, the mortgage
banks instituted by him for the landed nobility spread all over Germany,
and still flourish ; whereas the differentiation of political rights according
to birth, which he rigidly maintained, has in the main passed away.
In the matter of colonisation, again, Frederick followed in his father's
footsteps; except that his chief exertions on this head concerned the
Mark Brandenburg and Silesia instead of East Prussia. Colonisation
was, nevertheless, likewise carried out very extensively in East and West
Prussia, in Pomerania and in the duchy of Magdeburg. It is estimated
that, during the course of his reign, the King settled 300,000 foreigners
on specially privileged conditions. Even if that figure is an exaggera-
tion, it is at all events certain that Frederick's colonisation policy very
considerably increased moderate-sized and small rural rholdings. Under
1763-86] Feudal burdens on the peasantry. 7 17
Frederick II, as under Frederick William I, large numbers of immigrants
were settled on comparatively unproductive soil ; the fertile portion of
the royal domains was reserved for the farmers-general (Generalpachter),
whose rents were, after 1763, raised more relentlessly than ever.
In almost all his provinces Frederick drained marshes, cut canals,
cleared away virgin forests, cultivated estates running to waste; in these
respects too he was following the example of his predecessors, but on a
very much larger scale. If it was at all possible, foreign immigrants
were settled on such reclaimed land. After the draining of the bog on
the Warthe in the Neumark, the colonists settled there had to see for
themselves to the clearing of their new homesteads and to bringing them
under cultivation. There was certainly little of the free and independent
life of the squatter in the conditions of existence of these people. As
the townsfolk were under the Steuerrath (surveyor of taxes), so the rural
colonists were under the Amtmcmn (crown bailiff) — ^the designation of
the farmer-general as a vicarious representative of magisterial authority.
The colonist, having almost invariably accepted benefits from the Govern-
ment, was not at liberty to leave his holding again at pleasure, or had at
all events to find a proper substitute. Colonists were also liable to forced
labour. The King held liberal opinions on this point, and, instead of feudal
services, imposed dues in money on the peasants newly settled on the
crown lands. But, with regard again to the imposition of forced labour
on those settled there from of old, the march of progress had to give way
before considerations of finance. In 1748 Frederick had laid down the
principle that peasants on crown lands should not render more than a
four days a week statute service, personal and with their teams. After
the Seven Years' War this concession was dropped, as it would have
prevented the War and Domains Offices from demanding higher rents
from the crown tenants.
The peasants in the service of the nobility — two-thirds of the total
rural population — ^lived under still more unfavourable conditions than
the crown lands peasantry. Their statute labour was for the most part
unlimited. The King was not blind to the fact that the extreme
poverty of the rustic population could only be remedied by the abolition
of feudal services ; but such fundamental reforms were hardly compatible
with his conservative method of government. The Prussian peasant was
induced by his forced labour to put no heart into his work. The French
peasant, who, long before the Revolution, had ceased to be harassed to any
considerable extent by the feudal system, was indefatigably industrious,
and was constantly purchasing more land ; whereas King Frederick could
only with difficulty prevent the large estates from swallowing up the
peasant properties. The Prussian landlords and bailiffs, on whom the
patrimonial jurisdiction depended, practically possessed the right of
inflicting corporal punishment on the peasants. A peasant had to get
their consent to his matriage, and to give up his children to them as
718 Corn pripes regulated. — Government monopolies. [i763-86
servants for a number of years. Such thingsj if occurring at all in the
France of 1786, were sporadic phenomena. Butj even if Prussia could not
bear comparison with the sphere of civilisation of western Europe, the
conditions prevailing in Frederick's monarchy had a strong attraction
for the subjects of many German Princes. It. is true that in the years
of famine, from 1770 to 1774, when there were many deaths from pri-
vation in other parts of Germany, Prussia too suffered from exorbitant
corn prices ; but the Government was able here to prevent the distress
from reaching the highest pitch. In innumerable instances, Frederick fed
communities or individuals at the cheapest possible rate, and seed corn
was often distributed by him gratuitously. Forty thousand Bohemians
and Saxons are said to have been driven by famine across the border,
where they found a new home under the wings of the Black Eagle. In
no country of Europe was the public corn supply at that time regulated
according to the principle of laisser faire, laisser aller ; not even in
England. By means of prohibitions of exportation and importation, and
by the establishment of depots which bought at cheap and sold at dear
times, Frederick succeeded in keeping the price of corn at a moderate
level, except in quite abnormal years. In his testament of 1768 he
says: "With regard to the price of corn, it is incumbent on the ruler to
draw a hard and fast line, striking the mean between the interests of the
nobleman, the farmer of crown lands, and the peasant, on the one, side,
and those of the soldier and the working man, on the other." This policy
was unquestionably right. Thoroughly adapted to the age in its whole
conception, it acted all the more advantageously, in that the Prussian
depots could command for their purchases not only the home market, but
also the neighbouring market of Poland, where corn was absurdly cheap.
It must not be forgotten that, here again, Frederick was merely carrying
on the work of his father. He added thirteen fresh depots to the seven-
teen left by Frederick William I.
Frederick II was more powerful at home than Louis XIV, and his
dominions were easier to supervise ; consequently, economic conditions in
Prussia could be more effectually regulated from above than in France,
the model country of mercantilism. The Crown had a monopoly of salt,
coffee, and tobacco. The state institution of the Seehandlung (Board of
Maritime Trade) possessed a monopoly of sea-salt, and partially of wax.
The King was the chief corn-merchant in his realm; he owned a third
of the arable land. He was building great merchantmen at Stettin
for sale abroad. A government concern, endowed with monopoly rights,
piKveyed firewood to Berlin and Potsdam ; another was granted the sole
right of exporting timber from the state forests of the Kurmark and
the duchy of Magdeburg, together with a right of preemption as to
all timber from private forests destined for export. As regards mining,
in Upper Silesia lead-mines and blastnfurnaces were worked in the
fiscal interest, and there was in Berlin a government iron dipot tor
I'zea-se] State tutelage and protection. 719
the sale of Silesian iron. In the Westphalian county of Mark the iron
industry, which was already highly prosperous, was at least restricted
to ground forming part of the crown domains, and paid tithe. In
this and in every other trade, no less minute and careful regulations were
made under Frederick II than under Frederick William I. In order to
supply efficient labour for the Silesian woollen trade, spinning-schools
were established, and the agricultural labourers were not allowed by the
authorities to maiTy, until they had given proof of their qualification as
wool spinners. The tutelage exercised by the State over the domestic
affairs of the citizens was extended to the most trivial matters. Thus,
on the occasion of the proposed erection of a paper-mill, the King issued
the following order ; " In our land the bad habit is prevalent among
maid-servants both in town and country of burning up rags for tinder
to light the fires ; an effort must be made to break them of this. The
ragmen must therefore be provided with touch-wood to give to the maids
in exchange for rags. They can light their fires just as well with that as
with rags for tinder."
But Frederick II further resembled his predecessor in not merely
extending a sort of police protection to those engaged in industries or
trades, but also, in patriarchal fashion, assisted them with money and
money's worth, He declared that of the 3,000,000 thalers (6^450,000)
yielded annually by the increased duties nothing should be expended
for political purposes, but that the whole sum should be devoted to
promoting the welfare of the country. And he fully redeemed his word.
Between 1763 and 1786 he spent nearly 60,000,000 thalers (^9,000,000)
in raising the economic condition of his people. He built factories in
Berlin at a cost of 9,000,000 thalers (^1,350,000), and made them over
to the manufacturers. This absorbed thrice the sum given or lent by the
King to the nobles who had suffered damage through the Seven Years'
War. One special feature of Frederick's mercantilism was the develop-
ment of the silk and velvet industry from quite insignificant beginnings.
Throughout the civilised world of that day, efforts were being made to set
this industry on foot ; but no Government strove with so much tenacity,
intelligence and liberality as the Prussian to reach the unattainable
height of the example given by Lyons. During his reign Frederick ex-
pended 2,000,000 thalers (.£'300,000) on the advancement of this trade.
Of course, but a very small proportion of the raw material was obtained
at home, and a government dipot for raw silk ensured a regular supply
for the miUs at steady prices. Except for a few temporary crises, the
manufacture of velvet and silk grew steadily in Prussia,
The King called the Silesian linen industry his "Peru." He said
that in the linen-manufacturing districts he would permit no mining,
not even for gold, lest the supply of wood should be diverted from the
bleacheries. Recruits for filling up the gaps made by the Seven Years'
War in the ranks of the weavers were sought abroad not less energetically
720 Prohibitions and tariff wars. [i763-86
than they were for the army. Every immigrant weaver received a loom
as a free gift. Of course, he was not allowed to leave Prussia at his
option, after he had once settled there and accepted benefits from the
Government. The position of the linen weavers was most unfavour-
able in Prussia — as indeed all over Germany. The King was ignorant
of those social ills which the eighteenth Century in general was little
capable of understanding. In his eyes, the salient point was that Silesian
linen should reach the Spanish market at a low enough price to be able
to undersell that manufactured across the frontier in Prance close by.
As in the case of the velvet and silk manufacturers and the weavers,
Frederick assisted employers and employed alike in every trade with
free gifts, pecuniary advances, indemnifications, premiums. " Let It be
known," the King said to one of his Ministers, " that, if an economic
enterprise is beyond the power of my subjects, it is my afiair to defray
the costs, and they have nothing further to do than to gather in the
profits." Keen advocates of mercantilism affirmed that the flourishing
condition of Prussian industry was due to the great circulation of money,
as debased coins could not pass out of the country. This stra;nge notion
certainly failed to hit the mark; but, in point of fact, the means
employed for securing the productiveness of Prussian industry, though
efficacious, were two-edged. " I make use of prohibition as much as I
can," the King sa,id to de Laiinay. Prohibitions of importation, exporta-
tion, and transit followed one another in rapid succession after 1763.
Soon after the Treaty of Hubertusburg the importation of pig-iron and
raw steel from Austria was forbidden. At the same time, the export
of Silesian wool to the Habsburg monarchy was stopped, as also the
transit thither of Polish wool. The exportation of that commodity
from the other provinces had been already prohibited by Frederick
William I. The political economists of Vienna replied with the
strongest countervailing measures. Austria forbade the importation
of Prussian silk, goods, woollen cloths and shawls, hats and stockings.
After Prussia had also stopped the supply of wool from Silesia and
Poland to the factories of the Saxon electorate, a still fiercer tariff war
began on that frontier. A Dresden edict of 1765 prohibited outright all
Prussian manufactures ; and Prussia retaliated by an edict forbidding the
importation from Electoral Saxony of all silk, cotton, woollen and linen
goods, gold and silver plate of every sort, and china.
In 1768, rich strata of iron ore were discovered in Upper Silesia,
a district hitherto of little account. Hereupon, the importation of
iron from Sweden was forbidden. The iron-workers thought it im-
possible to do without Swedish iron, and, in order to teach them
better, artillery experiments were made upon Swedish and Silesian
iron. It was alleged that the native metal stood the test better than
the foreign; but the Prussian Ordnance Office, which could of course
procure import licenses, continued to use principally Swedish iron, and,
1763-86] General dread of paper money. 721
for several years afterwards, the wrought-iron trade considered itself very
heavily damaged by the prohibition.
The necessity of securing some return from the concerns carried on
or subsidised by the State caused the system of prohibitions to be
extended further and further ; and this of course reacted very unfavour-
ably on the development of trade. How much this branch of economic
policy left to be desired, is clearly seen in the history of the origin of
the Prussian Bank, the forerunner of the modern German Reichsbarik.
This institution was founded by Frederick the Great at Berlin in 1765 ;
and a branch was started at Breslau, where it was lodged in the refectory
of the Jesuits. This was done despite the protests of the reverend
Fathers, whom Frederick took under his protection against the Pope,
because they conducted the higher education of the Silesian Catholics
free of charge — not that he otherwise entertained any special regard for
the rights and property of the Order. Privy Councillor Wurmb, who
took in hand the establishment of the Breslau branch of the Prussian
Bank, soon recognised that the merchants of the Silesian capital were
full of mistrust, and told the chief men among them that it would be
folly for everyone to be afraid of bank-notes, and to try to get rid of
them immediately on receiving them. This dread of paper money was
in fact the crux of the matter. The commercial world had not for-
gotten the catastrophe produced by the fall in the standard value of
money during the Seven Years' War^ The Prussian Bank was started
with 450,000 thalers {£Qt,BOQ) cash in public money and the right to
issue bank-notes up to 1,300,000 thalers (^195,000). The King further
held out the prospect of making over to the Bank 8,000,000 thalers
(»&1, 200,000) in cash out of the War Exchequer. The leading merchants
of Breslau begged that a part of this sum might be put in circulation
at once, but that the issue of paper money might be stopped ; otherwise
they would enter into no business ti-ansactions with the Bank. But their
hand was forced, as that of the Jesuits had been ; and twenty-one of the
chief merchants of Breslau were obliged to open accounts with the Bank.
The centre of the linen industry of Silesia was Hirschberg. In their
distrust of paper money, the merchants there gave up sending their
bills to the capital of the province for discounting, and sent instead
to Leipzig or Prague. The notes on the Prussian Bank continued to
fall in value ; and the Breslau merchants after all had their way in the
main. Of the 1,300,000 thalers which the Bank, according to its patent
of 1765, might issue in notes, only 580,000 had been set in circulation
by 1806. In business and general dealings, Prussian paper money
counted for so little as to warrant Mirabeau's gibe that no scoundrel
had ever yet counterfeited a Berlin bank-note. King Frederick put a
quite different interpretation from that anticipated by the Breslau mer-
chants on his edict proposing to endow the Bank with 8,000,000 thalers.
He caused, in the first instance, 900,000 thalers and then another
O. U. H. VI. CH. XX, 46
722 The Prussian Bank. [i763-86
7,900,000, to be transferred from the Treasury to the Bank. But these
8,800,000 thalers were not invested, but merely deposited. The royal
deposit was called FouragegeMer (forage moneys), in order to indicate
that it still belonged to the War Exchequer.
The "forage moneys" constituted an apparent security for the volim-
tary and compulsory deposits of the general public flowing into the Bank,
The compulsory deposits were due to a second edict, issued by Frederick
ifi 1768, directing the authorities to invest in the Bank, at an interest of
3 per cent., all unemployed capital deposited with them belonging to
widows, orphans, minors, institutions, hospitals, or charitable and educa-
tional foundations, unless such money could be placed in mortgages.
This was a serious enactment from the moral point of view; and its
economic expediency is also open to grave question. The trade of
Prussia, hampered as it was by the system of monopolies and privileges
and by tariff wars, could not profitably employ the capital which was to
reach it through the medium of the Bank. The directors of the Bank
looked round them in vain for an opportunity to make suitable invest-
ments. So they did the best they could, putting the money into tobacco
sharieis, ships, and commodities. Under the two Kings who followed on
Frederick II, the directors of the Bank found themselves driven further
and further along this precipitous path. There was all the less chance
of safeguarding the deposit-holders, when the avalanche of the Napoleonic
invasion descended upon the kingdom of Prussia. At that time, all the
possessions of widows and orphans, and the like, which through the
Bank had been brought into an unnaturally close connexion with the
State, were involved in its catastrophe. But, during Frederick's lifetime,
all seemed safe ; and the net profit from the Bank was continually in-
Creasing ; in the year of the King's death the 460,000 thalers of initial
capital paid over 60 per cent. This money had been earned by the
many millions of voluntary and compulsory deposits. In spite of this,
Frederick claimed the total profit of the Bank for the Exchequer. No
reserve fund was started. The security of the creditors now as ever
rested solely on the "folrage moneys," for \<4iieh the Bank had to pay
the King 3 per cent, interest. On the other hand, the rate of interest
to other depositors was soon lowered to 2 or S| per cent. The
institution of this Bank was manifestly prematm-e from an economic
standpoint. All manner of coercive measures on the part of the 'Govern-
ment, indeed, gradually accustomed the business world to having its
transactions managed to a certain extent by the Bank ; but this probably
had no eflfect on trade, one way or the other. Thus, there was no
palpable result from the foundation of the Prussian Bank beyond the
creation of a new surplus in favour of the royal finances.
There was economic progress in Prussia under Frederick II, just
as there had been under Frederick William I, though the figures
of contemporary statistics, which should indicate a marked rise, are
1763-86] The economic policy . of Frederick II. 723
absolutely untrustworthy. It was no case of a rapid advance in material
welfare either under Frederick the Great or under his father ; but from
certain facts it may be inferred that a certain improvement in the
welfare of the people actually took place. Frederick the Great once
complained to de Launay that luxury was so much on tlrc increase that
every servant-girl must now have a thread of silk in what she wore. The
purchasing public can only have gratified fresh wants of this sort by
means of additions which must iiave been made to the national wealth.
What applies to silk must be ^so said of cojSee, the consumption of
which from 1750 onwards became a more and more general custom. As
stated above, however, it must not be supposed that there was any very
considerable increase in public prosperity between 1763 and 1786. The
revenue from excise and customs yielded, between 1766 and 1786, a net
increase in returns of 23,500,000 thdlers (£3,525,000). The revenues
from the province of West Prussia, not acquired till 1772, are not
included in this sum. Thus the French revenue officials managed to
raise on the average, another million thdlers per annum. This represents
both the proceeds from increased taxes and the additional receipts due
to increased purchasing power, which latter must therefore not be
reckoned at too high a rate. For the Prussian body politic rested, after
aU, on a substructure of unfree peasantry^ who, whenever the landlords
and farmers-general required, had to furnish statute labour four days and
more in the week; whose way of work was slack; and who, if they earned
55 thdlers cash in the year, were only allowed 20 thalers and less for
their own domestic purposes.
Shortly afW Frederick's death Mirabeau's book De la monarchie prus-
sienne sous Fridiric fe Grand appeared in London. The author passes a
crushing judgment on Frederick's economic policy, by apply ingthe standard
of those theories of political economy which had recently come to the fore
in western Em-ope and eclipsed mercantilism. But, for the present, the
English and French in practical politics applied the hew doctrines only
very cautiously and not even consistently, while in Prussia not only
Frederick II but almost the whole body of his civil officers steadily
adhered to mercantilist principles. The Prussian nation, which was far
behind the nations of western Europe in almost every respect, seemed
for a long time yet to require direction from above in economic matters.
" Mankind," Frederick complains in his testament of 1768, " move if
you urge them on, and stop so soon as you leave off driving them.
Nobody approves of habits and customs but those of his fathers. Men
read little, and have no desire to learn how anything can be managed
differently; and, as for me, who never did them anything but good, they
think that I want to put a knife to their throats, so soon as there is any
question of introducing a useful improvement, or indeed any change at
aU. In such cases I have relied on my honest purposes and my good
conscience, and also on the information, in my possession, and have
CH. XX. 46 — 2
724 Economic advance under Frederick William II. [i763-97
calmly pursued my way." It has been shown that only too many changes
ordered by the King put the fiscal knife to his subjects' throats ; and it
was no wonder that they cried out, forgetting in that perilous moment
the economic blessings which beyond all doubt they likewise owed to him.
• It was not merely by victorious battles and diplomatic skill, but also
by his home policy, that Frederick the Great raised Prussia to the third
place among the Powers of the world. As the champion of enlightenment
he appears in a specially glorious light. In the Belgian possessions of
Maria Theresa, from whose intolerant rule Frederick had freed the
Protestants of Silesia, a Bockreiter (" gentleman of the road ") was
burnt alive, about 1780, because, when committing his highway robberies,
he was said to have performed blasphemous ceremonies after the manner
of the customs formerly imputed to the Templars. If, at the close of
the eighteenth century, inhumanity, superstition, intolerance, and pseudo-
science had to give way all over Europe, incalculable services for the
victory of rationalism were rendered by the royal philosopher, who took
the lead on the Continent in the abolition of torture. Where Voltaire is
praised, Frederick must not be left unhonoured.y
Frederick William II, the successor of Frederick the Great, was
a gentle, kind-hearted man, who tried to do away with the innumerable
hard and ugly comers in the State built up by his grandfather and his
uncle* He raised the pay of captains and commanders of regiments, and
also the salaries of civil officials. He abandoned the plan of constantly
raising the rent paid by the farmers-general, abolished the monopolies
on coffee and tobacco, and put an end to the Regie, sending all the
French revenue officers back to their homes. The new ruler earned great
popularity by this measure; for, just as the people of Prussia had before
laid the chief blame for the debasement of the coinage on Frederick IPs
Jewish financiers, so the odium subsequently aroused by oppressive
taxation attached maiiily to the French.
The eleven years' reign of Frederick William II was economically
a happy period. Customs and excise, the proceeds from which had
grown so slowly under Frederick II, yielded a constantly ample and
steadily increasing revenue, despite the fact that the vexatious methods
of the French excisemen were a thing of the past. The causes of this
material advance are to be sought in the fact, that, though Frederick
William II carried on numerous campaigns in Holland, in Champagne,
on the Rhine and in Poland, all these wars were fought outside Prussia, and
consequently had no deleterious effects upon the economic conditions of
the country. On the contrary, they stimulated trade, in accordance with
Cobden's maxim that war is the greatest of all consumers. The expen-
diture on these wars was not defrayed by increased taxation, any more
than Frederick the Great had augmented the taxes in the Seven Years'
War. Such a step would have been quite irrational ; for the non-noble
1786-Q'72 Ji^f^ction against the Axifklavnng. TheBodcrucians. 725
classes in Prussia had so great a burden of taxation to bear, even in time
of peace, that progress was but slow and difficult. Heavy war taxes
would have crushed them. Thus, nothing remained then for Frederick
William II but to pour out the 51 million thalers (d£'7,650,000) left by
Frederick the Great, in order to meet the expenditure on military opera-
tions and armaments which preceded the Convention of Reichenbach.
The whole of this sum was not expended at home, but a large part of it
was ; and the contraction of a public debt to the amount of 9^ million
thalers (i&l ,425,000) which was, though with a good deal of trouble,
floated abroad, brought foreign money into the country, and was thus
more or less to the advantage of Prussian trade and industry. The
"forage moneys" in the bank, were, in strict accordance with their
designation, used up for military purposes together with the entire
reserve in the Treasury, so that the private deposits were, together with
the widows' and orphans' funds, the hospitals and charitable and
educational endowments, left absolutely unsecured. But a more serious
result of the political decadence of Prussia was the fact that, by the
exhaustion of her Exchequer, she was degraded financially to the level of
her rivals, Austria and Russia, who were not in a position to sustain
great European wars without the aid of subsidies from England or France.
When Frederick made peace at Hubertusburg, there were still, after
seven campaigns, over 14 million thalers (^6*2,100,000) in his Treasury.
If he could have made territorial acquisitions, as his nephew did, without
a great war, but at the cost of his whole treasure, he would probably
have preferred to risk a war on a large scale, which would then have
been self-supporting — just as the Seven Years' War was fought on the
Prussian side by means of the resources of conquered Saxony, and,
subsequently, the cost of Napoleon's war with England was squeezed out
of subjugated Prussia. ^
Frederick's title to be called "the Great" is more than half due to
his having made room in the world for the AufMiirung. But the "spirit
of the world " did not cease to work ; religious feeling and the historic
sense began to stir in their turn, and to react against rationalism. At
the head of this mighty host of opinion marched a troop of strange and
repulsive figures. The Rosicrucian Order, which was widespread in the
aristocratic circles of Germany, sought for the philosopher's stone, busied
itself with alchemy and spiritualism, laboured at the preparation of a
balm to make old people young and bring the dead to life again. The
surgeon -general of the Prussian army, Theden, endeavoured to catch
falling stars in order to distil the balm from this elemental matter.
With alchemy, spiritualism, and the search for panaceas, bigotry was
associated, and thus some very queer saints came to the front. Towards
the end of his time as heir presumptive, Frederick William was persuaded
that he had been cured of a large abscess in the thigh by the secret
panacea and devoted care of the Rosicrucians. The heir to the crown
726 The Religionsedict. [1786-97
hereupon entered the Order and received the name of Ormesus Magnus.
When he came to the throne, Frederick William II directed his foreign
policy chiefly according to the advice of a brother of the Order, Farferus,
whose name in ordinary life was von Bischoffswerder, and who was
adjutant-general to the King.
In his home policy, Frederick William relied to a large extent on
another Rosicrueian, Minister von WoUner. He was the son of a poor
country clergyman, and, as private tutor in a wealthy noble family, had
by his intelligence and eloquence secured the goodwill of the mother
and the hand of the daughter. Frederick the Great, who desired that
a caste-like distinction between classes should remain the basis of the
Prussian State, was wroth at Wollner's successful covp, and pronounced
him " an intiiguing and tricky parson." In any case, " Heliconus " was
without reproach in his private life — something of a merit in the Berlin
of that day. In other ways, the " Minister for the Lutheran Department"
was not without his merits ; but as to this we cannot here enter into
further particulars. WoUner owes his place in history solely to the
ReUgionsedict, as it was called, which he drew up for the King, and which
was promulgated by Fi-ederick William II in the summer of 1788.
The censures of the Religionsedict on the teaching and conduct of
the rationalistic clergy, university professors and schoolmasters cannot
be termed altogether unwarranted, in view of the shallowness and
indiscretion of many attfgeklarte preachers and teachers. On the other
hand, Frederick William and his advisers exhibited a startling lack of
appreciation of the intellectual achievements of the past century; for the
edict threatened all who were not orthodox with removal from their
pulpits and chairs. The Government also abrogated that freedom of
speech and writing in regard to religious matters by which Prussia had
under the late King set so glorious an example to the world. In this
Frederick William II appealed to the example of his sober-minded grand-
father, Frederick William I, in accordance with whose views he wished
to restore the Christian religion in its original purity and authenticity,
in order to check so far as he was able the immorality arising from
infidelity and the perversion of the fundamental truths of religion.
The Rosicrueian Oi'der imposed on its members among other obliga-
tions that of chastity, after the example of the Templars. Frederick
William II attacked immorality in his ReUgionsedict, and, as a matter of
fact, rationalism had tended to upset the moral views of many men and
women. But the morality of the pious King himself was anything but
strict. He carried on innumerable love-intrigues; his favourite mistress,
Wilhelmine Enke, the sister of a ballet-dancer, was married to a groom
of the chamber named Rietz, and enjoyed the favour of the King until
his death. Frederick William's second consort. Princess Louisa of Hesse-
Darmstadt, bore him four sons ; but, in her lifetime, he contracted a
morganatic marriage with one of her maids of honour, who was succeeded
1788-97] The resistance to the Religionsedict. 727
on her death by another of the Queen's ladies. Both these bigamous
alliances were solemnised according to the rites of the Church by Zollner,
the rationalistic court chaplain.
The Rosicrucians, a medley of religious enthusiasts, hypocrites, and
deceived deceivers, were hardly more virtuous in their everyday life than
the rationalists. Their self-knowledge did not prevent them from taking
their stand on the Edict and adopting violent measures in the name of
true Christianity against the clergy, the teaching profession, the univer-
sities, and literature, " lest the mass of poor folk be handed over to the
delusions of the teachers of the day, and millions of our good subjects by
thus forfeiting the peace of their lives and the consolation of their death-
beds, be made utterly miserable." WoUner issued a rescript against
Kant, in which the philosopher was charged with the perversion and
degradation of many of the cardinal doctrines of Christianity and of
Holy Scripture, and with thus violating his duty as a teacher of youth
at the university. If such conduct should be repeated by him, he would
most certainly have to take the consequences. " Heliconus " enjoyed a
triumph ; for Kant, old and desirous of quiet, almost entirely suspended
his academic activity. But in other quarters the execution of the
Religionsedict encountered the most tenacious opposition. In Prussia
there existed at that time only the small beginnings of a cultured middle
class in independent circumstances. Culture belonged almost exclusively
to the official class. Trained as this body of men had been by Frederick
the Great, it was, clergy and all, thoroughly permeated with rationalist
views. This official class accordingly summoned up courage to defy the
obscurantist Government. The judicial and administrative authorities
took under their protection the persecuted literary adherents of the
Ayfkldrung, as well as the rationalist clergy, professors and teachers.
Moreover, the persecutors themselves proved to be not untouched by
the humanitarian spirit of the age ; and, when the rare event occurred
of a clergyman losing his benefice, Frederick William ordered that he
should be provided with some well-paid secular post. The Rosi-
crucians' attack on the Avfklarung dwindled away and, at the most,
served to confirm Prussian society in its hostile attitude towards
orthodoxy. The nucleus of that society, the official class, not merely
earned the negative credit of having averted an unhealthy mysticism,
but won a high positive title to fame in the sphere of legislation.
The Prussian official class had been trained by two great Kings in the
way, not always of justice, but of practical intelligence, insight and
indefatigable zeal, and now bade fair to surpass its Frepeh prototype,
and to become the most efficient bureaucratic body injjhe world.
This phase of the internal history of the country found expression in
the codification of the common law of Prussia (AUgememes Preussischet
Landrecht). A different system of law prevailed in every province
of the Prussian State, as it did in every German territory; and the
728 Common-law code.-Death of Frederick William II. [i78i-97
general development of the law in Germany at large had been for
centuries at a standstill. Frederick the Great had, therefore, com-
missioned von Carmer, the successor of von Fiirst, who had been so
brusquely dismissed from the High Chancellorship, to prepare a general
code for the whole Prussian kingdom. Carmer surrounded himself with
a staff of lawyers, of whom Privy Councillor Suarez was by far the most
important. This Herculean task, which occupied ten years and was
not interrupted by the change of sovereign, reached its conclusion in
1791. The code bore the stamp of the absolutist polity of officers, with
its spirit of caste ; but on the other hand it was full of the tendencies of
the Aufhlarung. It may be noted, in this connexion, that Frederick
the Great had removed from the Prussian code the application of torture,
but not the infliction of cruel and barbarous additions to the punishment
of death. Frederick William II laid it down that, though the death
penalty could not be abolished, there must under no circumstances be
any deliberate increase of the physical pain necessary in its application.
But the King's gentleness of disposition was such that he was very im-
perfectly obeyed ; and almost half a century passed before Prussian justice
absolutely ceased, in certain cases, to direct that the bones of criminals
should be broken on the wheel. Carmer and Suarez even took over some
of the French ideas of political liberty ; but the King, under the influence
of the mystics, struck out most of these. Some remnants, however,
survived ; and these, together with the whole spirit of the code, supplied
the Prussian officials as a class with the force which enabled them to
accomplish their development into an independent factor in the history of
their country, instead of being as heretofore, merely an instrument in the
hands of its Government. The Allgemeine Landrecht was a masterpiece
as to both form and contents, and morally advanced the cause of
rationalism throughout the whole of Germany. The first great codifica-
tion of law since the time of Justinian was supplemented by the philosophy
of Kant. Thus it was not only the body of military officers who in this
State had laurels to show. When, in 1806, it was annihilated, the
enlightened men among both its military and its civil servants joined
hands, and, by means of the reforms of Stein and Hardenberg, succeeded
in founding a new Prussia.
Although he permitted the Rosicrucians to exert a baneful influence
over him, it cannot be said of Frederick William II that he was merely
a tool in the hands of that sect. On the contrary, he often made
important decisions repugnant to the mystics. To the women about
him the King allowed no political influence at all. Despite his love of
pleasure, he did not squander public money. He was not deterred by
financial diffictflties from considerably strengthening the army, herein
acting like a true King of Prussia. Frederick William II died, in his
fifty-third year, on November 16, 1797, just about the time when
Napoleon Bonaparte was coming to the front in France.
1763-4] Prussia, Russia, and the election of Stanislaus. 729
(2) POLAND AND PRUSSIA.
(1763-91.)
The acquisition of Polish Prussia (the present province of West
Prussia) had been described as a political necessity by Frederick the Great
when still Crown Prince, and a glance at the map fully bears out this
view. In the political testament of November 7, 1768, he pictures the
time when this connecting link shall have been gained for his monarchy,
and when, certain points along the Vistula having been fortified, it will
at last have become possible to defend East Prussia effectively against
any Russian aspirations. But, he adds, it is from Russia that the
strongest opposition will come to the endeavom's to annex Polish Prussia.
His successors must, therefore, try to get possession of the country piece-
meal, by means of negotiation based on Russia's urgent need, at any
time, of Prussian support. It was a conjuncture of this kind which led
to the First Partition of Poland. Russia was, then, at this time of
vital importance to Prussia in respect both to her Eastern and to her
general policy; because both of the tension between Prussia and the
Western Powers, and of the enduring historic antagonism between
Prussia and Austria. Though, after the murder of Peter III and the
Treaty of Hubertusburg, the attitude of Russia towards Prussia had
seemed, at the best, one of neutrality, the common interest of the two
Powers in Polish affairs brought about relations between Frederick and
Catharine which she wished to limit to an understanding as to Poland,
but which he desired to expand into a general cooperation between them
against Austria. The difficulty of bringing the Polish interregnum to a
close in such a way as to suit Russian interests at length compelled
Catharine to commit herself to an alliance which was more in those of
Prussia than in her own. The compact was concluded on April 11, 1764!,
the two Powers undertaking to effect the election of Stanislaus Ponia-
towski. Should either of the signatories be attacked within his or her
own frontiers by a hostile Power, the other was bound to furnish
military assistance ; if " subjects of the Polish nation should disturb
the peace of the Republic and form a confederation against the lawful
sovereign, the Tsarina and the King would advance their troops into
Poland." In this treaty of alliance Russia guaranteed the possession
of Silesia to Frederick ; on the other hand, he was now bound to Russia,
whatever consequences might arise from her own policy in regard to
Poland; for both Powers further pledged themselves to maintain the
Constitution and freedom of election in Poland and proposed a line of
action in common in regard to the "Dissidents" (dissenters). It was to
the advantage of Prussia that anarchy was kept up in Poland, and the
pressure long exercised by that Power along the Prussian frontiers pro-
portionately weakened. On the other hand, Prussia had nothing to gain
730 Confederation of Bar. — " I/ynar's project." [i764-9
from the Russian ascendancy in a kingdom so impotent as Poland, which
implied the advance of the Russian empire to the Prussian frontier.
There was thus an inherent inconsistency in the Prusso-Russian alliance,
of which Frederick was fully aware; the position in which he had to
carry on his Polish policy was one of constraint, but he made admirable
use of it when the crisis of the Partition of Poland was reached.
With the election of Stanislaus Poniatowski Catharine had attained
her object, and till 1768 she seemed to have become absolutely mistress
of Poland. Her policy, however^ led to the Confederation of Bar, and
to the war which broke out in consequence between Turkey and Russia.
A dangerous international tension arose, France and Austria in par-
ticular, as has been previously related, in their turn assuming a threatening
attitude towards Catharine. Should a European war ensue, Fredferick
would be involved in it as a matter of course, and must stand or fall with
Russia. In this event, he was resolved to fulfil his obligations towards
Russia; but he told himself that he would then be fighting for ends
which either had no bearing on Prussian interests or were directly
opposed to them, and that it would therefore be better from his point
of view if there were no war. He was also determined, if war there
must be, to put in a claim for territorial compensation from Russia:
here was the occasion indicated in the political testament which at this
very time he was rfevising.
Frederick recognised the casus foederis and paid the stipulated
subsidies to Russia for her Turkish War. At the same time, he en-
deavoured to effect a renewal of the alliance with Russia; but the
modest condition which he laid down for such a renewal proves how
slight was his expectation of acquiring West Prussia; for he merely
asked that Russia should agree to a not very serious guarantee of a
Prussian claim to the reversion of a certain territory within the Empire.
Prince Henry, however, was already of opinion that this crisis would
force Russia and Austria to consent to an acquisition of territory by
Prussia at the expense of Poland. Now, so early as the beginning of
1769, Frederick had suggested to Panin a scheme of partition which
was ostensibly put forward by the Saxon minister Count zu Lynar, but
of which the real originator was the King himself. According to this
plan, Russia, in return for the assistance rendered her against the Turks,
was to offer to Austria the town of Lemberg with its surroundings and
the Zips ; to hand over to Prussia Polish Prussia, with Ermeland and
protective rights over Danzig; and, by way of indemnity for the expenses
of the war, take for herself whatever part of Poland would suit her. The
significance of this suggestion should not, however, be overestimated.
Frederick simply intended "Lynar's project" as a feeler; and it abso-
lutely fell through when Panin replied with a quite different scheme,
drily observing that, so far as Russia was concerned, she already possessed
larger dominions than she could govern.
ne^-iijPrusso-Bussian alliance renewed. Partition schemes. 731
The negotiations for the renewal of the Prusso-Russian alliance
dragged on so long that before their termination the meeting between
Frederick and Joseph had taken place at Neisse (August 25-7, 1769).
Inasmuch as this meeting indicated a rapprochement between the two
Powers from whose inveterate antagonism Russia had much to gain, she
was obliged once more to come to terms with Prussia. The alliance was
extended till the end of March, 1780 ; but, of course, no mention was
made in the treaty of a partition of Poland.
In the middle of the following year, 1770, the Porte called in the
intervention of Prussia and Austria in her struggle with Russia.
Frederick and Joseph met again, this time at Neustadt in Moravia;
and, immediately afterwards, Frederick formally enquired of Catharine
whether the mediation of Prussia and Austria in the war with Turkey
would be agreeable to her, adding that Austria wished the Danubian
Principalities to remain under Turkish domination. This turn of affairs
placed Catharine in a difficult position : and it has been already related
how, in July, 1770, she quite unexpectedly invited Prince Henry of
Prussia to visit St Petersburg, in order that a personal note might be
struck in the progress of her relations with Prussia. Henry arrived in
St Petersburg on October 12 and remained there tiU the following
February ; and the intimacy then formed between him and the Tsarina
was kept up by a correspondence of ten years' duration. But Henry was
not, as has been surmised, the bearer of secret instructions for a treaty
of partition of Poland. The correspondence between the two brothers
shows that Frederick did not at that time wish "to interfere either in the
peace (with Turkey) or in the affairs of Poland, but simply to watch the
course of events " ; and Henry's sole business was to induce moderation
and compliance in the Court of St Petersbiurg, However, Catharine
would not hear of any mediation by other Powers, and the terms of
peace which she offered to the Porte seemed tantamount to a declaration
of war against Austria. At the critical moment, a way of escape was
provided by the occupation of a part of Poland by Austria. The
famous brief conversation on the subject which took place between
Catharine, Chemuisheff, and Henry at St Petersburg on January 8,
1771, set the ball rolling towards the partition of Poland as a solution
of the problem. A tract of Polish territory was offered to Prussia on
that occasion, Russia thus abandoning her principle of maintaining the
integrity of Poland. But Frederick disapproved, because his acceptance
at the moment seemed necessarily conditional upon his implication in
war — and war there would apparently be, since Chernuisheff clearly
meant the Danubian Principalities to fall to Russia's lot — a result which
Austria would never tolerate. Frederick felt, too, that for so great a risk
Ermeland was too small a gain. " My share is so slight," he writes to his
brother on January 31, 1771, "that it would not make up for the
tumult which it would arouse ; but Polish Prussia would be worth the
732 First Partition of Poland. [iVTi-a
trouble, even if Danzig were not included, for we should then have the
Vistula and free communication with the kingdom (i.e. East Prussia) — .
an important matter." Even in that event, Erederick wished to adhere
to his plan of neutrality and, if need were, pay a sum of money for his
strip of Poland. But Prince Henry, on his return, correctly summed up
the situation: "You hold the balance between Austria and Russia; in
the end Russia will have to give in and to grant you some advantage in
return for those you secure her; when the A^^trians see this, they will
in their turn desire some advantage; so that each of the Powers, in
seeking an advantage for itself, will agree to an arrangement beneficial
to all threes" Accordingly, lest by persisting in neutrality he should fall
to the ground between two stools, Frederick made up his mind to enter
into the suggestion made from St Petersburg. This suggestion itself
was, therefore, by no means the result of an offensive policy against
Poland on the part of Prussia, whose line of action was rather forced
upon her by stress of circumstances. It is to Frederick's credit that he
was able to turn this pressure to good account in the interests of his
monarchy. Further developments were determined by Russia's stand-
point, which Panin expressed quite frankly and which Frederick shared :
if Russia had to forgo what she had gained by the war with Turkey,
she must seek compensation elsewhere, namely, in Poland. Negotiations
were carried on between Panin and Count Solms at St Petersburg. On
the other hand, the opposition of Austria seemed to quell all hope that
war between Russia and Austria could be averted by means of the plan
for the partition of Poland, the origin and extension of which have just
been described. It was only when Catharine, at the close of 1771,
formally declared to Prussia that she would renounce all claim to the
Danubian Principalities, and when both Powers thus came to terms
about Poland, that Austria determined to participate in this solution of
the question, distasteful as it was to Maria Theresa. On August 5,
1772, Austria entered into the Prusso-Russian Treaty of Partition of the
previous February 17; and, as has been related above, the First Partition
of Poland was concluded.
While the policy of Austria in the Polish question was artificial and
showed no steady purpose, that of Frederick was clear, definite and
tactically correct. He had, no doubt, now accepted a solution the
effects of which were contrary to the traditional interests of Prussia ; but
his hand was forced in the matter and, in any event, the independence
of Poland was doomed. He must not, thereforej be regarded as the
author of the Partition of Poland, for which Catharine is responsible both
in its general bearing and as a move in political tactics. The opposition
in which he stood to Austria forced him to follow the Russian lead in
this question. On the other hand, as Ranke shows, it was certainly due
to his action that the scope of the Partition scheme was so enlarged as
to bring about a readjustment of the balance of power in both north
1772] The Prussian gains and their significance. 733
and east. Frederick's Polish policy was fraught with still more important
results ; inasmuch as it may be said to have largely contributed to the
prevention of a violent crisis in the Eastern question and to the stoppage
of Russia's advance on the Danube. Furthermore, it rendered impossible
the sole domination of Russia in Poland. Russia's claim to the dominium
maris Baltici was henceforth contested by a strong Power, Prussia, instead
of by a weak one, Poland, and the lower Vistula became once more a
German river. Finally, through Frederick's Polish policy the founda-
tions were laid for an uiiderstanding between the two German Great
Powers. These far-reaching results were, it is true, secured at the cost
of Polish independence. But Germany, and more especially Prussia, had
an inherent historical title to the parts of Poland allotted to her in
1772. They consisted in iact of ancient German territory which had
never become thoroughly incorporated into the Polish community; so that
" regno redintegrato " was an appropriate inscription for the medal struck
to celebrate the allegiance of the newly acquired territory. Nowhere
was there any opposition to the occupation, the Protestants in particular
eagerly welcoming the new rule. The lands annexed by Prussia were,
indeed, in a miserably neglected condition; but this did not lead
Frederick to mistake the importance of what he had gained : " It is a
very good bargain," he wrote to Prince Henry on June 12, 1772, " and
very advantageous both financially and as regards the political position
of the State "; and, on June 18, 1772 : Prussia, he added, now controlled
all the products and all the imports of Poland — an important point ; but
the chief gain was that the inhabitants of Prussia could never again be
exposed to famine, since they had the corn supply in their own hands.
Notwithstanding all the efforts made, however, her new commercial
position could not attain to its full importance, so long as Danzig, the
emporium of the Baltic corn trade, remained outside her frontier.
Frederick next set to work with great energy to raise this new part
of his kingdom to the economic level of the rest of his dominions.
In this task he found valuable and far-seeing assistants in Johann
Friedrich von Domhardt, president of the Board of Domains, and Franz
Balthasar Schonberg von Brenkenhof, the first administrator of the Netze
district. But, as a matter of fact, Frederick was himself the real admini-
strative head of this province of West Prussia, as the newly acquired
territory was named. His policy was practical and most carefully thought
out, and he pursued it steadily and with due moderation. The liberation
of the peasants was at once proclaimed ; the land was taken out of the
hands of the Polish nobility, and German peasants and burghers were
settled on it ; a systematic administration of justice was introduced, and
national schools were established — measures which brought the counti-y
into line with the order of things existing in the Prussian State.
The further development of the Prussian policy in regard to Poland
was a matter of course, so long as the alliance with Russia held good ;
1M Prussians Polish policy changed. Its incompleteness. [1777-91
in this Prince Henry remained the intermediary, who corresponded
with Catharine and paid a second visit to Russia. Notwithstanding
the prolongation, in 1777, of the agreement between the two Powers to
March 31, 1788, Russia's Eastern schemes led to her abandonment
of the Prussian side for that of Austria, which momentous decision
ranged Prussia in a triple alliance with the Maritime Powers agains*
Austria and Russia. How entirely anti-Russian the polidy of Pruissia
had now become was shown by the agreement with Turkey, con-
cluded on January SO, 1790, and by that with Poland, which followed
on March 29 of the same year. Prussia now took the side of reform in
Poland, and in the end recognised the Constitution of May 3, 1791.
Thus Frederick William H wholly reversed his predecessor's policy,
and placed Prussia in a false position. Such an alliance was in itself
unnatural : the most important provision of the Constitution of
May 3, namely, the establishment of a hereditary succession to the
Crown, ran counter to Prussian interests ; and they must likewise suffer
if the new Constitution restored the union with the Saxon electorate, of
which the cooperation of Fredmck and Catharine had relieved Prussia.
This preposterous agreement with Poland precluded the extension and
adjustment of the Prussian frontier — at all events by the acquisition of
Danzig and Thorn, on which Hertzberg had concentrated his diplomacy,
even in the lifetime of Frederick the Great. Yet this end had to be
reached, if the work of the Hohenzollerns was to reach its organic
consummation.
735
CHAPTER XXI.
DENMARK UNDER THE BERNSTORFFS AND STRUENSEE.
Between 1730, when Frederick IV died, and 1784, when his great-
grandson, afterwards Frederick VI, successfully claimed the regency, the
part played by Denmark in the politics of Europe was but small. It
is true that, in an age of great wars, she increased her commerce, her
possessions overseas, and even her dominions in Europe, gaining prizes
such as tempted other nations to fight. But it was by quiet astuteness
and good fortime that these advantages were secured. The Oldenburg
Kings, it seemed, had at last learned the limits of their power. The
partial detachment of Denmark from the main current of European
affairs, however, by no means robs her history of interest. In an age of
absolute monarchies, she presents the spectacle of one entirely wielded
by feeble Kings. Power soon fell to a series of remarkable Ministers,
and Moltke, Bernstorff, Struensee, Guldberg, and the younger Bernstorff,
furnish a demonstration, unique in its amplitude, of the range and
possibilities of benevolent despotism.
Frederick IV, a monarch whose industry equalled his ambition, and
who won a place beside Christian IV and Frederick III in the reverence
of his people, perfected the machinery of despotism and simplified the
foreign policy of Denmark, After the downfall of Charles XII, Sweden
no longer dwarfed and menaced her neighbours. And, while traces of
the past were evident both in the determination of Frederick and his
successors to uphold the aristocracy which kept Sweden weak, and in
their hope that fortune might once more place the three Crowns of
Scandinavia on the head of an Oldenburg, the reconquest of Scania had
ceased to be an aim of the Danish State. The rulers at Copenhagen
now pursued clear dynastic ends on their own side of the Sound. They
cherished, indeed, hopes of attaining to a vote standing earlier on the
list than the thirty-fifth in the Imperial College of Princes, as well as of
filling their coffers with French or English subsidies and with the profits
of world-wide trade. But these aspirations were feeble and fitful in
comparison with those which concerned the Duchies, To retain the
736 The Danish monarchy at the death of Frederick IV,
lands in Schleswig which had been estreated from the House of Gottorp
during the Northern War, and to acquire the Gottorp heritage in
Holstein, were throughout these years the first aims of all who worked
for the security of Denmark and the glory of her Kings.
Home affairs, on the other hand, confronted the monarchy with
problems of greater diversity. During the two generations which had
passed since the coup d'etat of 1660, autocracy had fortified itself
unchallenged. The old Danish nobles, though not numerous and
apparently loyal, saw above them a Privy Council and an array of
governmental Colleges or Boards, chiefly officered by foreigners im-
ported and ennobled by the King. Besides the members of the
central Government, the Services, and the Bench, the principal officers
of local government were agents of the Crown. The citizens and the
peasants were still as of old the faithful upholders of absolutism. The
Church supplied a docile royal servant in every parish. The higher
clergy, however deeply wounded by royal decrees, submitted to a Divine
purpose which had made Saul and Jeroboam kings. The unquestioning
loyalty of the free Norwegian peasants was paid, not to the Danes, but
to the King of Denmark and Norway, and it was to him that the
Duchies likewise owed allegiance. In an age in which loyalty was almost
a religion, the King of Denmark was the cynosure of all his subjects.
He alone could sway and reform the State.
In 1730 the area and political influence of Denmark were far greater
than at the present day. The' dominions of her King then included
Norway, Schleswig, Oldenburg, Delmenhorst, and the royal portion of
Holstein. This considerable area, it is true, nourished a somewhat scanty
population. In 1769, when the first census was taken, the kingdom of
Denmark numbered only some 825,000 souls, while the Norwegians
numbered some 727,600, and the whole State little more than two
millions. When compared with the resources of some other European
nations, however, this number appeared respectable. Commanded by
an autocrat, and endowed by nature with the elements of power at sea,
it might easily become formidable.
After seventy years of absolutism, however, the social and economic
structure of Denmark still showed grave defects. Although, in 1702,
Frederick had abolished the worst form of serfdom (Vornedskap), so that
the peasants of Zealand and Fiinen were no longer the property of their
lords, and although Norway was in great part peopled by small proprietors,
agriculture, the staple industry of the State, remained primitive and
unprogressive. The peasants were ignorant and poor. Great masses of
them held their lands on condition of paying to their lord taxes which
were commonly beyond their strength, and of performing labour services
whose incidence was determined by him. The lord, who in many cases
appointed the local judges, could with a fair prospect of impunity resort
to brutal violence against his tenants. Apart from these evils, moreover,
The Danish nation at the death of Frederick IV, 737
agriculture could hardly flourish, so long as the system of cultivation
remained medieval in type. The peasants still yoked four or six horses
to cumbrous wheeled ploughs, and feebly scratched the soil with wooden
harrows. The villages still cultivated all their lands in common, each
owner possessing strips of land scattered over the surface of vast open
fields. The three-field system of tillage, with its wasteful monotony
of corn-crops and fallow, had not yet given place to a wiser rotation.
In Jutland great tracts of territory still lay waste, while throughout
Denmark the nobles often found it no easy task to secure tenants for
their vacant farms. Industry, confined to the towns and crippled by the
gild system, was even more feeble than agriculture. An unprosperous
nation, where the rural populace fed and clothed itself, offered no place
for thriving towns. Copenhagen, which, with some 70,000 inhabitants,
was more than five times as populous as any other Danish borough,
could not rebuild itself after the great fire of 1728, until the King with-
drew his ban against houses framed with timber. Some seaports, notably
Bergen, Aalborg, Aarhuus, and Altona, showed signs of energy and
progress ; but even within their confines vigorous municipal life had not
yet sprung up. The market towns, though numerous, were insignificant
and poor.
Of the national temper it is hard to speak with confidence. The
sacrifices exacted by the long Northern War had been bravely made.
Ignorance, sluggishness, and good-humour seem to have characterised
the common people. Foreign travellers, whose impressions were naturally
formed chiefly in the capital, found the upper classes cold and dull.
Critics, both native and foreign, derided their excessive greed for titles.
"The world here," wrote Colonel Robert Keith in 1771, "is parcelled
out into no less than nine classes, six of whom I must never encounter
without horror. Yet my opera-glass tells me that numbers eight and
nine beat us all hollow as to flesh and blood." The first three classes,
which formed the Court, included no one of lower degree than an acting
councillor of State, a colonel, or a commander. The King, as supreme
disposer of the whole hierarchy, gave or sold rank as he pleased, thus by
yet another method enhancing his own autocracy.
Of this heterogeneous and somewhat unprogressive State the Olden-
burg dynasty was the conscience and the soul. Nothing was too distant
or too trivial for the eye and ear of the King, It was he who appointed
the organists in provincial churches, who gave or withheld permission
to follow callings outside the gilds, and who licensed the unfortunate
to beg. To him and to the Council, whose powers and functions he
determined, men and women from the furthest confines of Norway
presented their petitions for favours and for redress. His paternal
activity embraced the affairs both of this world and of the next. By
the "Sabbath Ordinance" of 1730 Frederick IV, a bigamist, doomed
his subjects to observe Sundays and holy days with Judaic rigour. On
C. M. H. VI. CH. XXI. 47
738 Christian VI.— Economic policy. [1730-7
these festivals work and amusements were alike forbidden, the town
gates locked until four o'clock in the afternoon, and the people directed
on pain of the pillory to attend church. This edict, and the absence of
protest against it, illustrate the character of the autocracy which in the
same year devolved upon Christian, Frederick's son.
Christian VI, a man of little ability, mean presence, and somewhat
petty disposition, was to prove a humane, industrious, and thoroughly
welUmeaning King. He came to the throne permeated with the belief
that by the exercise of his power he could make his people happy and
good. Surrounding himself with Ministers of his own choosing, of
whom the genial soldier Poul Vendelbo Lowenorn remained longest
in power, he promptly swept away the most vexatious ordinances of his
father. The taxes were reduced, the compulsory militia was abolished,
the grant of trading monopoly to Copenhagen revoked, and the Sabbath
Ordinance annulled. Unhappily for Denmark, however. Christian was
tenacious only of dignity, industry, and good intentions. Lacking
genius to divine the national needs, he did not supply its place by
personal contact with the people or by choice of Danish counsellors.
Himself German in speech, he had mamed, for her godliness, Sophia
Magdalena of Baireuth. The Queen despised the Danes, but spent the
revenue profusely; She demanded a new diadem, and thought it
unqueenly to don a garment more than once. To this German lady
and her mother the King gave a ready ear, while the court preacher
and almost all his Ministers were German.
With so little security that Danish policy should be national, it is
not surprising that, both in home and in foreign aflFairs, Christian failed
to hold a steady course. Early in 1733, the peasants were once more
subjected to military service which bound them to the soil. The new
militia was only one-half as numerous as the old ; but the provisions for
maintaining it fixed by law made it far more onerous. Before the close
of the reign peasants from nine to forty years of age were forbidden to
quit their holdings without the permission of their lord, while it rested
with him to determine which of them should compose the contingent
due from his estate.
Attempts on the part of the Crown to regulate trade were numerous
and violent. In 1732, the King founded an Asiatic Company. In the
following year, the West India and Guinea Company was permitted to
buy from France the island of St Croix. In 1735, a new department of
State for Economy and Commerce was created, and in 1736 the Bank of
Copenhagen was established. Foreign spinners and weavers were brought
in and paid to manufacture a number of products for which purchasers
could not be found. In order to nurture home industries, the ports
of Denmark and southern Norway were closed against ships with
certain freights, of which the chief was corn. In 1737, paternal inter-
ference reached its climax with the establishment of a royal store in
i'728-46] Religion and education. — Frederick V. 739
the capital,. Government secured funds for purchasing goods from the
manufacturers, by forcing its pensioners to accept deferred orders for
goods on the store in place of the payments due on account of their
pensions.
The King's interference in the sphere of religion likewise savoured
of the limitless autocracy which he claimed. He and his Queen were
swayed by the pietism which at this time powerfully appealed to the
deep feeling and traditional independent manhood of the Norths The
Copenhagehers, thousands of whom had seen their homes destroyed by
fire in 1728, listened willingly to the call to repentance. To Christian,
however, the revival of religious life seemed attainable by a social
reformation dictated by himself and by the increased activity of a state
Church controlled by him. He closed theatres and dancing-halls, forbade
masquerades, and banished actors. In 1735 he reenacted the Sabbath
Ordinance, with reduced penalties and permission to do necessary harvest
work on Sundays. In the next year he signalised the second centenary
of the Danish Reformation by introducing the rite of Confirmation, and
thus made further religious instruction compulsory for all his subjects.
In 1737, to supplement his own unceasing supervision over all depart^-
ments of religious life and thought, a General Board of Ecclesiastical
Inspection was set up. Later in the reign the King, by means of edicts,
waged war upon conventicles and sectaries. Unorthodox propagandists
were banished from all Denmark with the exception of four towns.
The Puritan King who frowned upon amusements eagerly furthered
every branch of education. Holberg ceased to be a playwright, ismd
became a historian. In 1732 the University of Copenhagen was refounded,
and the overwhelming preponderance of its theological faculty reduced,
by means of favours shown to that of jurisprudence. Seven years later,
the few secondary schools which Denmark possessed underwent drastic
reform. Something was done to continue the work of Frederick IV in
founding elementary schools. Towards the close of the reign, two
societies for the promotion of Danish national learning and culture
were founded with ; the countenance of the King. . i
To Christian VI succeeded in 1746 his son Frfederick V, a Prince of
glittering qualities, who took all hearts by storm, and in his reign of
twenty years gained for Denmark the reputation of a fortunate and
happy State. He proved himself at first too wise, and afterwards,
perhaps, too indolent, to attempt by sweeping changes to gain his aim
of pleasing all. Suavely disappointing the young courtiers who thought
to rule in his name, and dismissing Count Frederick Danneskjold-Samsoe,
the able but difficult Minister of Marine, he retained in the main the
councillors and the policy of his father. Even the Sabbath Ordinance
remained unrevoked. The accent of royalty was, however, changed.
Social life, taking its tone from the King and his popular Queen Louise,
became unaffected, genial and gay. Absolutism was put into commission.
CH. XXI. 47 — 2 i
T40 Moltke and the Council.— The elder Bernstorff. [i746-5i
Thie King's friend and Chief Marshal, Count Adam Gottlob Moltke,
German by origin, but in patriotism a thorough Dane, took unofficially
a very large share in the business of the State. Working with Johanii
Sigismund Schulin and his successor in foreign affairs, and in home
affairs with ' the Council or the several high officials, Moltke gave his
master leisure for the dissipation to which he gradually became a slave.
Even, however, after his degeneration had begun, Frederick V re-
mained a force to be reckoned with. His German lieutenants served him
with enthusiasm while he lived, and never ceased to extol him to each
other after his death. Within the kingdom, the Council, a benevolent
oligarchy, trod with measured pace in the paths of policy which were
already familiar. To promote mahufactures, shipping, and agriculture,
and to remedy, when occasion offered, the defects in education, in the
status of the peasants and in the brganisatioii of the army, were plain
duties. In foreign affairs, on the Other hand, Denmark, after a quarter
of a century of successful opportunism, had to face crises which imperilled
her existence as a nation. In 1750 she lost Schulin, killed, as was
believed, by the blunders of his physician. To find a Competent successor,
whether native or alien, was no easy task. Next year, however, the
death of Frederick, Prince of Wales, removed a prior claim upon the
future career of his friend, the Hanoverian Baron Johann Hartwig Ernst
von Bernstorff, who, as chief secretary of the so-called German Chancery,
was to guide Danish diplomacy and influence Danish life for nearly
twenty years.
Bernstorff had already won renown by his skilful and zealous
services to Denmark, notably at the Imperial Diet. During a six years'
embassy at the Court of Louis XV he gained a European reputation and
procured for Denmark the profitable Treaty of Alliance of April, 1746.
From 1751 onwards, he was for twenty years settled at Copenhagen, and
gained such eminence as to make credible the reputed epigram of
Frederick the Great : " Denmark has her fleet and her Bernstorff'." In
some respects,, however, he was to prove an indifferent consultant to the
State. Prone to magnificence, and believing that, inasmuch as he
abstained from gambling, he could not be extravagant, he influenced the
King and Court in the direction of their natural inclinations. Luxury
reigned and debt increased in time of peace. Bernstorff countenanced the
costly efforts to create trade by laws and subsidies. Loving the French
and loved by them, he clung to the common belief that France was still
as preeminent in Europe as she had been in the days of Louis XIV. A
North German Protestant, he was blind to the fact that leagues of small
States based on religion were out of date. A disciple of Schulin, he did
not perceive that the rise of Russia ought to change the policy of
upholding oligarchic " freedom " at Stockholm in order to keep Sweden
weak. He exposed his adopted country, moreover, to the undying
hatred which Frederick of Prussia cherished against him and his House.
1742-58] Bernstorff and foreign affairs. 741
But, although posterity finds some qualification necessary to the national
and international laudation of the " oracle of Denmark," the advent of
Bernstorff must be pronounced to have been highly fortunate for the
State. Not only did he diffuse through the administration an atmo-
sphere of hbnesty, industry, and goodwill, but it was also through him
that the ideas of France, England, and Germany were brought into the
small and backward country which he servied. Society and the arts also
owed much to him. In Moltke and Bernstoi-ff, it was said, Denmark
possessed two Colberts. A strict Protectionist, Bernstorff was all for
free trade in men of talent. Besides officials, he imported from France
and Germany professors, divines, poets, sculptors, physicians, and men of
science. Elopstdck, Johann Andreas Cramer, "the German Bossuet,"
and his own nephew and successor Andreas Peter Bernstorff are but the
chief in a cirowd of these profitable allies. In his own department,
Bernstorff made good use of the slender means at his disposal. Denmtirk
possessed a fleet which was far from contemptible, but her war-chest stood
enipty, and her army, although more than 50,000 strong, consisted of
unruly German mercenaries, supported by an ill-trained militia. Yet in
1758 Bernstorff was able to develop the French alliance into an arrange-
ment by which France subsidised a Danish army and pledged herself
with Austria to further that mageskifie, or exchange of Oldenburg and
Delmenhorst for the dominions of the House of Gottorp in Schleswig-
Holstein, which was long the lodestar of Danish policy. In 1756
Sweden became for a short time the ally of Denmark in armed neutrality ;
and ten years later the Swedish Crown Prince Gustavus was allowed to
marry Sophia Magdalena, the daughter of Frederick V. Denmark,
guided by Bernstorff, was almost the only State of northern Eiurope
which held aloof from the Seven Years' War, while she succeeded in
avoiding collision with England, the terror of maritime neutrals. Most
delicate and dangerous of all were the relations with Russia.
The difficulties of Denmark with Russia had their root in the
Holstein-Gottorp question. It was an axiom with the Gottorp Dukes
that the confiscation of their possessions in Schleswig had been a direct
breach of law. That view found support outside, notably from the
Emperor. Frederick IV, on the other hand, offered nothing by way of
compensation, and declared that he would defend his acquisition to the
last drop of his blood. But the House of Holstein-Gottorp, powerless
by itself, became formidable through marriages with the sister of
Charles XII and the daughter of Peter the Great. Frederick IV and
Christian VI therefore sedulously courted France and England, and
strove to secure Schleswig by means of far-teaching alliances. For many
years this policy proved successful. In 1742, however, Charles Peter
Ulrich, the son of the dispossessed Charles Frederick, was declared heir
to the throne of the Tsarina ; and in the following year his cousin
Adolphus Frederick was unanimously elected by the Swedish Diet to be
742 The Seven Years' War. — Death of Frederick V. [1750-66
the future successor of King Frederick I. The choice of Adolphus
Frederick marked the triumph of the Tsarina's diplomacy over that of
Christian VI, who all but declared war against Sweden in support of the
candidature of Frederick his son.
In the course of the next few years, however, Denmark secured a
better understanding with both Russia and Sweden. In 1750 Schulin
procured a treaty by which Adolphus Frederick undertook that, if the
inheritance of Holstein-Gottorp should ever fall to him, he would
resign it to the King of Denmark in return for Oldenburg, Deliiienhorst,
and 200,000 dollars, Charles Peter Ulrich, now the husband of the
future Catharine the Great, proved less amenable. For nearly twenty
years he steadfastly refused to sell his birthright ; and it seemed only too
probable that, on the death of the Tsarina Elizabeth, he would employ
the might of Russia to avenge the wrongs of his House. To avert this
peril, BemstorfF tried every resource of diplomacy in vain. Through
six campaigns of the Seven Years' War he had preserved the neutrality
of Denmark. But in January, 1762, the Tsar, Peter III, became her
foe. Denmark soon found herself, without a single ally, confronting the
veteran hordes of Muscovy supported by Frederick the Great.
Peter III, however, changed the issue of the European struggle
without harming his enemy. Neither her strong naval squadron nor
the army of thirty thousand which her French Field-Marshal* Count
Louis St Germain, led into Mecklenburg, was called upon to strike a
blow for Denmark. The deposition of Peter III in July dissolved her
peril. Less than three years later, in March, 1765, Catharine became
the ally of Frederick V, and undertook, while the Duke of Schleswig-
Holstein, her son Paul, was still a minor, to make such arrangements es
would put an end to the Gottorp disputes.
When, in January, 1766, Frederick paid the penalty of his excesses
by a premature death, his servants contemplated with pride the fruit
of their labours at home and abroad. The realm had unquestionably
advanced in agriculture, industry, commerce, and general organisation,
and it was at peace with all the world. But two decades of power had
produced in the Council a certain self-sufficiency. While reform was
needed on all sides, and the public debt amounted to twenty million
dollars, BernstorfF and his friends showed no desire to quicken their
pace or to welcome the cooperation of other forces. It was not unnatural
that others thought that the great King who ruled Prussia from his
Cabinet should form a model for the future conduct of the Danish
autocratic State.
The sceptre now fell into the unwilling hands of Frederick's son
Christian VII, a youth not quite seventeen years of age. Under the
stern and perhaps brutal governance of Privy Councillor Ditlev Revent-
low, he had grown up in complete ignorance of the management of
public or even of private affairs. He had never been free to spend a
1766-72] Christian VII. — Provisional Treaty of Exchange. 743
ducat or to open a letter by himself, and the companions provided for
him had achieved his moral ruin. He possessed considerable ability and
great, though fitful, ambition. During boyhood his memory and facility
of speech had often roused admiration, and in early manhood his talents
commanded unfeigned respect. His form was agile and graceful, and he
retained for many years great insensibility to fatigue and no inconsider-
able power of charming those who met him for the first time. But
grave defects in his character soon made Danish patriots tremble. He
lacked industry and tenacity, delighted in the misfortunes of others,
proved himself a traitor to his friends and servants, and devoted his
wild imagination to the invention of new forms of debauch. It is now
confidently asserted that he was already in the grip of an inexorable
mental disease {dementia praecox) which, advancing fitfully after the
dawn of manhood, could not fail to reduce him to imbecility in the
course of a few years. In that age, however, insanity was so little
understood that the court physician could in 1786 attribute the King's
malady to his premature assumption of the duties and freedom of a
sovereign. From his accession to the year 1772, acts which betoken
disease were attributed to youthful folly or to evil counsels, and the
meek obedience of Denmark was often rendered to the scribbled man-
dates of a madman.
During the first four years of the reign, two of Christian's delusions
formed the most potent influences in the history of the State, He
believed that his own power and genius were incomparable, but that
to attain perfection he must harden himself by physical excess. He
delighted to show his power by cashiering officials who had been de-
nounced either as serving him ill or as appropriating to themselves his
proper glory. St Germain, the able organiser of the army, was removed
from the Board of War. Moltke, long so omnipotent as to be nick-
named "King," was dismissed without a pension. Prince Charles of
Hesse-Cassel received in 1766 the hand of Christian's sister and unbounded
favour, only to be driven into retirement in the following year. Even
BemstorfF lived in constant insecurity. At the same time Christian's
resolute profligacy was endangering the repute of the monarchy and the
life of the King. His ministers had therefore other inducements than
their desire for the friendship of England, when they prevailed on him
to make an early marriage. In November, 1766, he consented to espouse
the sister of George III, Caroline Matilda, then fifteen years of age.
The gay young Queen brightened the social life of the capital. In
January, 1768, she gave the Crown an heir, the future Frederick VI.
Bemstorff remained in power, and his policy gained a notable
triumph when, in April, 1767, the " Provisional Treaty of Exchange "
was signed in Copenhagen. Renouncing for herself the Gottorp claims
in Schleswig, Catharine undertook to use her good offices with her son
Paul, M'hen he should come of age, to follow the same course and also
744 The Kin^s foreign tour. — Struensee. [i767-9
promote the exchange of Ducal Holstein for Oldenburg and Delmen-
horst. The negotiations for this Treaty had thrown a striking light
upon the political situation. Patriots may justly lament that the
policy of Denmark was decided by a diplomatic struggle at Copenhagen
between one Prussian and two Russian diplomatists and two soldiers
from France and Germany. Bernstoi-ff, whose German origin was now
almost forgotten, had carried his point only by inciting Catharine and
her representatives to secure the dismissal of the King of Prussia's agents.
Thanks to the same powerful support, he was now created Count.
But Russian assistance was not rendered without payment. Under the
influence of the fear that Sweden, the common foe, would gain strength
by reform, the entente between Russia and Denmark soon developed into
a relation too closely resembling that of a patron and a client State.
Meanwhile, Christian VII was falling under the influence of the
companions of his orgies, particularly Count Conrad Hoick and the
so-called Slovlet Katrine (Catharine of the Gaiters), who seemed on
the eve of becoming his ofRcial mistress. Hoick gained for a time an
ascendancy so complete that Bernstorfl' pledged himself to support the
favourite on condition that he did not intrude into politics. It was he
who in November, 1767, banished the disinterested Swiss philosopher
Elias Solomon Francis Reverdil, formerly the King's > tutor and now
his Cabinet Secretary. Court intrigues, lunatic outrages, and the over-
throw of notables offensive to Russia, filled the history of Denmark,
until in 1768 the King announced his invincible determination to visit
foreign lands. Escorted by a train of more than fifty persons, among
whom Bernstorif seemed to English eyes the only man of sense and
virtue, he journeyed by way of Holstein and the Netherlands to England
and France. Here he went through a summer and autumn of festivities
with a show of enjoyment and with a regal bearing which in public
never gave way, while his disease was fast reducing him to senility. The
design of including Italy and St Petersburg in the tour was abandoned.
After his return in January, 1769, when his delighted subjects discovered
that the royal orgies had come to an end. Christian was at heart
indifferent to everything save what caused discomfort to himself.
Thus afflicted, the King came under the influence of a young German
doctor, John Frederick Struensee, who had accompanied him on his
journey in 1768. Struensee owed his post as royal physician, like
his previous success among the nobles of Holstein, to his own talent and
to his friendship with Count Schack Charles Rantzau-Ascheberg, a
brilliant adventurer, in whose revolt against the accepted rules of religion
and morality he shared. By treating the King with intelligence and
tact, Struensee gradually became indispensable to him. In what
degree Christian's astonishingly good behaviour while abroad was due to
Struensee's advice, it is impossible to determine. On his return to Copen-
hagen with the King, his modesty, handsome person, and talent tor
1770-1] Struensee and the Queen. — Clique and Council. 74$
pleasing, partially overcame the contempt which the arrogance of the
Court deemed fitting towards a "pill-maker" and a pastor's son. The
Queen's prejudice against him melted away when he first restored her to
health, and then achieved the miracle of bringing to her feet a husband
who during eight months' absence had wellnigh ignored her existence.
As Christian sank deeper into apathy, the Queen's influence over him
and over the Court of Denmark grew, while Struensee became the con-
fidant and director of the royal couple. Often tormented by delusions
and always regarding contempt for marriage as a mark of superiority, the
King looked on with indifference while, during the year 1770, his wife
became the paramour of his friend. It was his complete and enduring
conquest of the Queen that rendered possible the extraordinary empire
over Denmark to which Struensee attained during 1770 and 1771, and
the cascade of reforming edicts associated with his name.
From the nature of the case, the record of these years can hardly
be free from uncertainty. The King, whose brief decrees overthrew
Ministers and created institutions, was at times unquestionably sane.
Amid all his wayward fancies, he had long before aspired to become the
benefactor of the people and to emancipate himself from the oligarchy
of high officials. That these results were now zealously sought after,
that in this Struensee played a great part, and that he eventually used
the lunatic King as a machine for registering his own decrees — ^are facts
established beyond dispute. His share in the government during 1770
and the first months of 1771, on the other hand, like the springs
of his action and the sources of his information, may well provoke
debate.
It was not until near the close of 1770 that Struensee began to be
regarded as a person of importance. He was notoriously the favourite
of the Queen ; but the Queen shunned politics and devoted herself to
her lover and to her son. To the world the King's reader and ex-physir
cian seemed a humble member of a royalist clique, whose notables were
Rantzau-Ascheberg, St Germain, and General Peter Elias Gahler.
These men, apart from their personal grievances and aspirations, united
in regarding the power of the Council as a usurpation. They would
have Denmark ruled like Prussia, by edicts framed in the Cabinet of
the King. Struensee they may well have regarded as one who might
commend their designs to Christian and Matilda, acting thus as their
useful and harmless ally.
The struggle between the old Government, of which BernstorfF was
the centre, and its opponents was decided during the summer of 1770.
The long seclusion of the King and Court on a visit to the Duchies, and
the humiliation of the Danish arms in an attempt to coerce the Dey
of Algiers, facilitated the triumph of Struensee and the Opposition.
Enevold Brandt, a young votary of pleasure, once the comrade of
Rantzau and Struensee in Altona, received a summons to the Court,
746 Fall of Bernstorff. [1770-1
from which he had been banished for attacking Hoick. Despite the
earnest and outspoken remonstrances of Bernstorff, who regarded the
Treaty of Exchange as lost if a man proscribed by Catharine were
favoured by Christian, the recall of Rantzau followed. Meanwhile
Reventlow received a severe rebuff, and Hoick, after witnessing the
dismissal of his associates, found himself cashiered. These events fore-
shadowed the fall of Bernstorff, which took place in September. The
veteran statesman received the blow with dignity, and from his retreat
in northern Germany continued to serve Denmark to the utmost of
his power. His successor as Minister for Foreign Affairs was Count
Adolphus Sigfried Osten, an able diplomat whose appointment might,
it was hoped, be not wholly unaccejptable to Catharine without implicitly
pledging Christian to remain her slave. Soon, however, the changes went
far beyond the dismissal of high officials in favour of new men, and the
rearrangement of offices so as to leave the oligarchy out in the cold. In
December, 1770, the Council was abolished; and the secret Cabinet, in
which the royal decrees were drafted, thus became the unrivalled centre
of influence in the Government. At the same time Struensee succeeded
an insignificant person in the Mastership of Requests — a confidential
secretariate of little dignity but of enormous potential importance.
Early in 1771, the King's disease made a notable advance, and it became
more than ever necessary to screen him from his subjects. Brandt, the
master of the revels in which the Court continued to indulge, became
almost formally the King's keeper, and, in June, Reverdil received an
unexpected invitation to return to Copenhagen. On his arrival, in
September, he found the King in a pitiable condition, but still able to
conceal his infirmity from some who saw him, and at times to act and
speak with intelligence.
Meanwhile, Struensee had made more definite advances towards
oflicial power. During the first half of the year he had become master
of the privy purses of the King and Queen, from which he and Biandt
had each received a sum of 60,000 dollars. In July, he was declared
Minister of the Cabinet, with power to write down the verbal orders of
the King, to seal them with his cabinet seal, and to promulgate them as
law. After July 15, 1771, cabinet orders were issued with the signature
" By command of the King — Struensee." A week later. Christian and
his stepmother Juliana Maria attended the christening of a little
daughter whom the Queen had borne to Struensee, and both Struensee
and Brandt were made Counts.
During the eleven months which had passed since the ideas of
Struensee became dominant in the State, the nation had lived in a
whirlwind of reform. Every Danish institution had been subjected to
an examination in which popularity counted for little and antiquity for
nothing. It was significant that Struensee knew little of history and
never learned Danish. Often indeed the advice of a specialist, a board,
1770-1] Ideas and reforms of Struensee. 747
or a commission, was sought ; but there was no security that the cabinet
order which swiftly followed on the first enquiry would do more than
solve the questions at issue by the forcible application of what the
Minister held to be enlightened principles.
The key-note of the new regime had been struck early in September,
1770, when cabinet orders, composed in German, struck at the abuse of
rant and titles and abolished the censorship of the Press. Before the
close of the year, while government by Cabinet was being organised, an
elaborate scheme for the reception and education of some 2500 waifs
received the force of law. These measures were but the pioneers of a
host which followed in 1771. To give Denmark a benevolent despotism
secure against bureaucratic restraint, to strike down privilege in every
sphere of life, to abolish practices which outraged contemporary senti-
ment, and to maintain for every citizen the widest possible freedom to
live the life which seemed good to him — such were the main motives of
Struensee's profuse and hasty legislation. It is impossible to mention here
more than a small number of the edicts which he poured forth from the
royal Cabinet, or to indicate how far some of the more important can be
shown to have had their origin outside his era or his brain. Although
he had never been distinguished by industry and did not now withdraw
from the gaieties of court life^ he appears to have devised and constructed
the great majority of the edicts by himself, with only such aid as a few
private secretaries could afford. Working single-handed and with no
predetermined plan, he saw tasks on every side and shrank from none of
them. Reverdil, who is manifestly a witness of truth, learned from a
friend that Struensee had declared to him that he would so reform the
State as to leave no stone of it undisturbed.
The emancipation of the King, which for the moment implied the
omnipotence of Reform, had been in great measure attained by the
abolition of the Council. It was still further advanced by changes in
the administrative system. In imitation of Prussian absolutism, the
several Boards Were taught complete subservience. Their staffs were
ruthlessly reorganised, and their mutual relations rearranged ; while they
were compelled to rely upon written reports in place of personal access to
the King. Their presidencies and other great posts held by nobles who
might impair the royal autocracy were abolished. A great advance was
made towards purifying the Civil Service from aristocratic jobbery and
corruption. The Treasury, which received a great augmentation of
importance, was filled with men of letters, including Professor Oeder,
the advocate of peasant emancipation, and Charles Augustus, the elder
brother of Struensee, a professor of mathematics from Liegnitz. It
could not be expected that among the slow-moving Danes such changes,
dictated by men unfamiliar with the existing machinery of government,
would create in a moment a smooth and efficient administration. The
old officials, however, yielded without a struggle, and their places were
748 Reforms of Struensee. [i770-i
filled by zealous dependents of the Crown, Some parts at least of public
)business were performed with unwonted and welcome despatch.
Benevolent despotism, however, could not attain perfection while
the Crown was hampered by debt. Struensee, therefore, submitted a
policy iof harsh retrenchment for the gracious improvidence of the former
Council, Although the amusements of the Court continued to be
costly, its daily life departed far from the model of Versailles. Pensions
were reduced or refused without mercy. The costly policy of buttressing
the fabric of industry by subsidies was abandoned. The erection of
superfluous churches was stopped. A reform of the University was
planned by which the State would be spared large payments to the
professors. The Guards were broken up. The higher posts in the
Civil Service were abolished. As a new source of revenue, a public
lottery was established, while the revenues of pious foundations were
appropriated without scruple to public ends.
Struensee's war with privilege went far beyond the boimds of revenge
upon the nobles, who had been wont to scorn the bourgeois and to secure
for their own lackeys places under the Crown. In trade, in industry,
in municipal government, and even in religion, vested interests were
menaced or swept away. The free port of Copenhagen, the gild
system of industry, and the governmental devices for securing well-filled
churches, were equally objectionable to the new "enlightened" views, and
severally suffered attack. The freedom of all Danish subjects and their
equal treatment by the law seemed to be within measurable distance of
attainment.
Power so unfettered made short work of abuses which survived from
ages long gone by, Copenhagen was transformed into a well-ordered
city. Throughout Denmark the scale of punishments became hghter.
Torture for judicial purposes was abolished. So far as lay in the power
of the law, the stigma of illegitimacy was removed. Parents might
no longer consign their refractory children to gaol, or great nobles
prevent the imprisonment of debtors.
Struensee's zeal for liberty embraced every section of the State. The
cause of the serf was taken up in earnest. The number of holidays
imposed by the Church upon the people was cut down, and the degrees
enlarged within which marriages were lawful. The vindication of personal
freedom was carried so far that the police were prohibited from entering
any house in order to put down vice. Danish subjects were no longer
forbidden to leave or enter towns by night, or, in many cases, to apply
themselves, within or without the walls, to the calling of their choice.
Salutary and even admirable as were many of these reforms, they lost
much of their value by the manner of their promulgation. It became
more and more clear to the people that these changes expressed the will,
not of an anointed King, but of an upstart and ungracious Minister.
Struensee seldom appeared in public save with the King and Queen, and
1770-1] His unpopularity. 749
he W£is reputed to be the harsh gaoler of the one and the paramour of
the other. "There was no Dane," declared Reverdil, "who did not
regard it as a personal insult to be subjected to a power whose sole
foundation was the scandal in the royal family." This power, moreover,
was habitually exercised with studied indifference to the feelings of
those whom it affected. To Christian Frederick Moltke, a son of the
friend of Christian's father, the royal will was communicated in a missive
of a type to which Danish officials had now to accustom themselves.
"You are no longer my Grand Marshal. My circumstances do not
permit me to keep one ; I dismiss you without a pension." The govern-
ment of Copenhagen was transformed and her cherished civic rights
annihilated by careless edicts composed in German. In comparison with
an " enlightened " principle, common convenience or opinion ranked as
nothing. The poor of the capital found themselves prohibited from
burying their dead by daylight, while the mass of the people regarded
the. extension of religious freedom as a conspiracy against religion.
As the summer waned, Struensee might well show signs of prostration
brought on by many months of assiduous court life combined with
unprecedented labours of State. Never widely beloved, he no longer
possessed a singlel friend save the Queen. Even the good-humoured
Brandt desired his overthrow. Many hated him for what he had
already done, and more for what they believed that he might do in the
future. In the meantime, the failure of two successive harvests had
spread misery through the country ; and, under Struensee's regime, no
one could feel secure for a single day that a cabinet order would not
threaten his means of living. The capital was in a ferment. Throughout
the nation, in Norway and the Duchies no less than in the kingdom
proper, all men of standing expected and longed for the deliverance of
the King from the bondage in which he was supposed to live. The
Press nourished sedition. Both within and without the confines of
Denmark, the most fantastic crimes and designs were attributed to the
Minister and the Queen. Struensee, who could not be wholly uncon-
scious of the public hatred, wavered in his course, feigned a serenity
which he did not feel, and suffered petty but notorious mutinies in the
fleet and army to go unpunished. Thus encouraged and egged on by
another adventurer. Colonel Magnus Beringskjold, Rantzau resolved to
become the prime agent in bringing about a catastrophe which, since
the summer of 1771, shrewd observers had deemed inevitable. Bemstorfl
and Moltke scouted any enterprise in which Rantzau was engaged.
Among the officers, Danish and German, however, he found willing
instruments. It was of still greater importance that the fear of popular
revolt and the display of a forged proof of Struensee's intention to
usurp the protectorship induced the Queen Dowager, Juliana Maria, her
son, the Hereditary Prince Frederick, and his tutor, Ove Hdegh Guldberg,
to join in plotting a palace revolution.
750 Overthrow and execution of Struensee. i[i772
In the early hours of January 17, 1772, Goldberg and a party of the
conspirators woke the King from sleep. The terror inspired by their
appearance, and the figment of a plot against his life, made Christian
ready to sign whatever they put before him. At his stepmother's
dictation, he wrote with his owh hand the order for the imprisonment of
his Queen. Meanwhile Sti-uensee and Brandt wfere seized in the royal
palace, and several of their adherents at home. Rantzau carried out
with cynical brutality the deportation of the • Queen to Kronborg,
Hamlet's castle at the northern entrance to the Sound. The King's
signature was, as usual, accepted as hallowing the most violent deeds.
" Glorious, eventful night," wrote the historian Suhm, in an open
letter to the King ; " future Homers and Virgils shall sing thy praise.
As long as Danish and Norwegian bravery shall live, so long shall the
fame of Juliana and Frederick endure — but not increase, for, that is
impossible." Next day the King, cowering in fear, was driven in a
gilded coach through his capital ; while Rantzau and his accomplices, as
it was believed, contrived that the rejoicings of the people at his libera-
tion should end in a riot. Thus was the seal set upon the triumph of
the revolution.
It remained for the King's deliverers, who promptly seized the reins
of power, to make their work secure. To this end Struensee and Bi-andt
were kept in irons while their papers were ransacked in search of proofs
that they had aspired to dethrone the King. Nothing of the kind
existed, and their accusers were therefore compelled to rely upon more
general charges. Brandt had, under great provocation, actually bitten
the King in the finger and beaten him with his fists, while Struensee
could be charged with having broken the Kongelov, or fundamental law,
by undermining the authority of the King and by issuing ofificial papers
which had not received the royal signature. Yet, as being here expressly
authorised by a monarch whose omnipotence and whose sanity no one
disputed, his proceedings could with difiiculty be construed as high
treason. But all hope for his escape vanished wheuj broken by five
weeks' misery in a dungeon, he confessed to a criminal intimacy with the
Queen. Jealously guarded by the victorious party, the King was hardly
capable of interference, and the intercession of Catharine was soon to be
proved unavailing. On April 6 an extraordinary tribunal decreed the
royal divorce, and on the 25th Struensee and Brandt were sentenced to
death. ITiree days later, in the presence of an enormous multitude,
they were hewn to pieces on the scaffold. Their remains were for years
exposed on wheels in the neighbourhood of Copenhagen.
Queen Matilda found a protector in the English Minister, Colonel
Robert Murray Keith, who denounced war against Denmark, if she
were in any way molested. His firmness (which George III instantly
rewarded with the red riband of the Bath) saved her from a lifelong
imprisonment in Aalborg Castle. At the end of May, having embraced
1772-84] The rule of Guldberg. 751
her infant daughter for the last time, she passed into retirement at
Celle. The vindictiveness of the King's half-brother Frederick, called the
" Hereditary Prince," and his associates had cooled the ardent royalism
of Copenhagen ; and it completely alienated the unforgiving King of
England.
If anything could have made the Danes regret Struerisee, it might
well have been the rule of his destroyers. The clique which had eman-
cipated Christian VII possessed no common aim, save the overthrow of
Struensee and the Queen. Devoid of policy, they made the King and
the nation subservient to a cabal. They created, it is true, a Privy
Council, and they were always careful to extort the King's signature
before issuing their decrees. The deformed and contemptible Hereditary
Prince strove to play the part of regent, and his mother to exercise the
influence of a regnant queen. They made free use of the national
resources to reward their fellow-conspirators. On Beringskjold and
Rantzau, men of bad character, were showered offices, donations, and
pensions. Colonel KoUer was ennobled and eventually also received
office and a pension. General Hans Henrik Eickstedt, a rough soldier,
became a member of the Ministry and Governor of the Crown Prince.
In talent and experience of affairs they were too deficient to dispense
with men of merit. Osten remained in charge of foreign affairs, the
incorruptible Joachim Otto Schack Rathlou was summoned to the
Council, and Baron Henrik Karl Schimmelmann placed his great au-
thority in commerce, taxation and finance at the service of the Crown.
BernstorfF, however, was suffered to remain in exile. It became more
and more apparent that the seat of power was to be found not in
the Council but in the Court, and that the man who inspired the Court
and carried out its wishes was Guldberg. For twelve years (1772-84)
Denmark obeyed court decrees, signed by Christian VII, but drafted
by the mentor of the Hereditary Prince.
The rise of Guldberg to high office had a far slower ' process than
that of Struensee. Preferring the reality to the appearance of power,
he was not created ai, noble until 1777 or a Privy Councillor until 1780.
But, by becoming ruler of Denmark through his influence over the royal
family, he formed the true counterpart to the confidant of Christian and
Caroline Matilda. In talent, character, and ideas, indeed, no two men
could offer a sharper contrast. Guldberg was an incorruptible patriot.
Hating foreigners and foreign ideas, he personified the reaction against
the cosmopolitan humanitarianism of Struensee. Save in the Duchies,
Danish became the language of government. It displaced German in
the army. Instruction in German was denied to the Crown Prince. An
Ordinance of May, 1775, enforced the study of the Danish language and
literature in schools. In January, 1776, without the privity of the
Council, an unalterable law was issued which provided that none but
Danish nationals might in future bold offices of State. These measures
762 Reaction in Denmark. [i772-84
sprang from the whole-hearted belief in the perfection of the old Danish
system so far as social organisation and religion were concerned-^a belief
which inspired Guldberg's attempts to make Denmark retrace every step
taken by her under Struensee's guidance.
To have created afresh the chaos of which his Court and City
Tribunal and his Poor Law had made an end, would, however, have
taxed fanaticism too heavily, and these institutions were suffered to
remain. Queen Juliana Maria and her son, the "Hereditary Prince"
Frederick, who stood above the nobles, and Guldberg, whose birth was
humble, combined to enforce the eligibility of commoners to serve the
State, and to develop the results of the principle once established. The
lottery, which brought pecuniary profit, was undertaken by the State.
The most flagrant perquisites and the worst scandals of patronage, by
which offices fell to the mere lackeys of the great, were not revived.
The Press continued to enjoy a freedom qualified by peremptory orders
not to meddle with politics and by the personality of Guldberg, the
vigilant defender of the faith. The spirit of his paternal government
breathes in the notorious sentence passed in 1783 upon a flippant
author. Not only was the edition of his book confiscated and a fine
imposed, but the editor was sentenced "to be better instructed and
convinced of his sin." To this end the Bishop was to have him cate-
chised by a few priests and eventually instructed by a schoolmaster,
unless One of the priests would undertake the task. Accused persons
might once more be examined under torture. The University and the
schools were, as of old, to devote themselves principally to the teaching
of religion. Apart from some vexatious but trifling burdens, labour
services again became due from the peasants to their lords. In Septem-
ber, 1774, a new army law carried ascription to the soil to its furthest
limit. An augmented proportion of natives to mercenaries in both
infantry and cavalry made the number of conscripts greater by almost
one-half than under the law of 1764. They were now to serve for
twelve years, and then to accept the holdings proifered by their lords or
be liable to serve for six years more. While the clergy and the landed
proprietors were thus propitiated, the manufacturers and merchants were
not forgotten. The ports of southern Norway were again closed to
foreign corn. Once more, millions were squandered on attempts to make
Denmark an industrial country. By a natural sequence, the Government
was led on to state factories, a state store, state-provided technical
education, state-built trading ships, a state bank, and a heavy over-issue
of inconvertible state paper. Thanks chiefly to the War of American
Independence, Danish commerce flourished; but, when peace returned
in 1783, the national debt stood higher than at the beginning of the
reign.
In the domain of foreign affairs Guldberg enjoyed great and con-
tinuous good fortune. The exiled Queen lived only long enough to
nn-mYTheyoungerBernstorff.-RussianExchange Treaty. 763
strengthen the foundations of his power by the fear of her vengeance.
She died at Celle in 1775, before the projects of her partisans had come
to a head or her son, the Crown Prince Frederick, had ceased to be a
child. In March, 1773, Andreas Peter Bemstorff, whose uncle had died
two years before, consented to place his rare industry and unblemished
character at the service of the State* He had been, in the words used
by the elder Bemstorff in the constant correspondence carried on betweeb
them, the " dear aiid intimate friend " of his uncle ; and, within a few
months of his accession to office, he had gathered the coveted harvest
which that statesman had sown and tended. Russia and Denmark,
menaced alike by the monarchical power which Gustavus III seized in
1772, secretly aUied themselves against Sweden, and on May 21, 1773
(N.S.), at Tsarskoye Selo, the Grand Duke Paul signed the Treaty of
Exchange without any reservations. Henceforward, at the cost of
Oldenburg and Delmenhorst, the King of Denmark might feel secure
in his possession of the Duchies.
The Schleswig-Holstein question was, however, far from being solved
by this transfer. The relation of the Duchies to Denmark proper had yet
to be determined by time. It was significant that Caspar von Saldem, the
domineering Holsteiner who represeiited: Russia in the negotiations, had
stipulated in 1767 that in futurie the officials employed in Schleswig--
Holstein should have studied for two years in the University, of Kiel.
He was now able to insist that the "German Chancery," which ad-
ministered the affairs of the Duchies, should receive a Director of its
own, and that a Holstein noble should fill this post.' Bemstorff, being
duly qualified, received the first appointment to a post which the tradi-
tional hatred of the Gottorp Holsteiners against Denmark made one of
no small difficulty.
In the first instance, however, the transfer of Denmark from thet
French to the Russian " system " brought many advantages. It could
not fail to be a valuable safeguard against the conquest of Norway by
Gustavus III, the fear of which had caused a hasty defensive armament
in 1772. BemstoriTs efforts to check the political revival of Sweden
profited little; but the course of events ran so strongly in favour of
Denmark that in 1780 the two Scandinavian States found themselves
leagued together in the First Armed Neutrality of the North. Of that
important, though abortive, political transaction an account will be found
in another volume of this History. It may be added. here that the idea
of a league between Russia and Denmark for the protection of the claims
of neutrals had been suggested by Bemstorff to the Russian Govern-
ment so early as 1778, in lieu of a Russian proposal for a joint convoy
to guard navigation in the Arctic Seas. Catharine II, after rejecting
the Danish counter-proposal, adopted it two years later, when, under
the influence of Fanin, she abandoned the project of a British alliance
which Potemkin had been bribed to urge, extendii^ th£ conceptioii^
C. U. H, VI. CR. XXI. 48
Y64 Foreign Affairs. — Dismissal of Bernstorff'. [1772-8O
however, from that of a Russo-Danish into that of a general league.
Bernstorff, who at once fell in with the Tsarina's enlarged scheme, sign-
ing the treaty, with Russia on July 9, 1780, anticipated the execution
of it by declaring the Baltic closed to ships of war belonging to
belligerents. ; He proved a staunch adherent, so long as it lasted, of
the scheme of Armed Neutrality of which he is thus to be credited with
the actual authorship.
So soon, however, as November, 1780, Bernstorff was suddenly
dismissed from office. The reasons for this step can only be conjectured.
It is said that Guldberg was incensed by a convention concluded by
Bernstorff with the British Government just before Denmark joined the
Armed Neutrality, which by limiting the definition of contraband
weakened the force of the agreement with Russia ; and it may be that
Guldberg really feared lest his colleague's personal sympathy with
England might jeopardise the Russian alliance. The two Ministers
were equally antagonistic to each other on questions of domestic policy.
Beriistorff's consistent endeavours to promote the emancipation of the
peasantry were offensive to his chief, who looked upon such an issue as
involving the ruin of the monarchy. Again, Guldberg was far from
sharing Bernstorff's avowed anxiety for the maintenance of distinct
administrative systems as lawfully established in each division of the
tripartite monarchy, and in the Duchies in particular, with which ties
of race and of intellectual culture closely connected him. As the elder
Bernstorff was the friend of Klopstock, so the younger was the brother-
in-law of the Stolbergs, the comrades of Goethe in the eager fispirations
of his youth.
Under Andreas Peter Bernstorff's successor as Minister for Foreign
Affairs, the Norwegian Baron Marcus Gerhard Rosenkrone, a pupil
/)f Guldberg, fortune continued to favour Denmark; The action or
inaction of the Dutch saved her from war with England in 1780, and
three years later the easy triumph of Russia in the Crimea frustrated
the design formed by Gustavus III of conquering Norway by a sudden
descent on Copenhagen. The attempt of the Queen Dowager to yoke
the Crown Prince to Prussia by marriage was foiled by his resistance.
Seldom, indeed, has a foolish and feeble Government, in a land which
had been regarded as conquerable by an army of not more than fifteen
thousand men, passed unscathed and even triumphant through a period
so vexed. By its very feebleness and stupidity, the rule of Guldberg and
the cabal procured indirect advantages for Denmark. During eight
years it taught Bernstorff what to avoid, and then furnished him with
the . opportunity of studying from afar for more than three years the
needs of bis adopted country. The Crown Prince Frederick, moreover,
grew towards manhood with a well-founded conviction, which every
worthy Danish statesman shared, of his own mission to rescue and rule
the State. For three years the plan of yet another seizure by force
1784-97] Fall of Guldberg. — Bevn^torff recalled. 765
of the regency of the kingdom was debated and matured within and
without its limits. An earlier attempt at carrying out the design was
prevented, chiefly by the counsels of Bernstorff and other men of weight.
Frederick of Prussia sent warning to the Com-t of Copenhagen. Yet, to
the last moment, Guldberg and his patrons believed themselves indis-
pensable and secure. At last, in April, 1784j when the long-deferred
Confirmation of the Crown Prince Frederick had been held, and he was
admitted for the first time to the Privy Council, he declared to his
astonished relatives and their supporters that Bernstorff with three
others ought to join the Council, and that government by the Cabinet
should cease. An order to this effect immediately received the signature
of the King, who then fled from the Council-chamber, pursued by his
indignant brother, the Hereditary Prince. Meanwhile the young Crown
Prince informed Guldberg and his associates that the King had no further
need of their services. Having thus brought the meeting of the Council
to an end, he succeeded in recapturing his father, who signed a rescript
which made him practically Regent. The day closed with a ball in which
both factions of the royal family took part. The victors, secure of
the moral support of society and of the nation, treated the cabal with
generosity, and the way was thus prepared for the beneficent sway of the
younger Bernstorff.
Andreas Peter Bernstorff held office as Minister for Foreign Affairs
and as President of the German Chancery from May, 1784, to his death
in June, 1797 — so that the greater part of this last and most important
period of his activity as a statesman lies beyond the scope of the present
volume. But it seems desirable to note, in a few concluding words,
some of the chief features of a period of government to which Denmark
long looked back with grateful recognition, while justly connecting its
achievements with those of the even longer series of years (1751-70)
during which the elder Bernstorff had controlled the affairs of the
naonarchy. The period from 1784 to 1797 was, first and foremost,
a period of peace — with the exception of the brief conflict with
^weden, in which Denmark was reluctantly obliged to engage by her
treaties of defensive alliance with Russia. In 1788, Gustavus III of
Sweden having taken the opportunity of the recent outbreak of war
between Turkey and Russia to declare war against the latter Power,
a Danish army, under the command of Prince Charles of Hesse-Cassel
(brother-in-law to King Christian VII) invaded Sweden from Norway,
and seriously endangered Goteborg (October). , But the Maritime
Powers and Prussia assumed so menacing an attitude of " mediation" that
Bernstorff hastened to conclude a truce with Sweden, and succeeded, by
the exertion of much diplomatic skill, in inducing the Tsarina to consent
that Denmark should remain neutral during the remainder of the War.
In the general European War which began in 1792 against Revolu-
.tionary France the same prudent statesmanship, as has been relate*^
CH. XXI. 48 — 2
756 Administration of the younger Bernstorff. [i 786-97
elsewhere j pi-eserved the neutrality of Denmark ; nor did her great peace
Minister live to see the final frustration of the efforts, which, both before
and after the conclusion of the alliance between Denmark and Sweden
for the protection of northern trade, on the lines of the Armed Neutrality,
he had made to avoid any collision with the two chief maritime belligerents.
Of these France was even more overbearing than Great Britain ; but
Bernstorff had been unable to make up his mind to side with the latter
against the former.
The neutrality of Denmark — which was fated to come to so
disastrous an end — had beyond doubt brought to the country an unpre-
cedented prosperity, which was enhanced by the far-sighted intelligence
displayed by several branches of the Administration of which Bernstorff
was at once the head and the soul. In the earlier years of the Revolu-
tionary War the mercantile dealings of Denmark with both the East and
the West Indies, and in Mediterranean waters — where, in the year of
Bernstorff's death, the honour of the Danish flag was vigorously asserted
against the fleet of the Dey of Tripoli — were developed with extraordinary
success; so that Denmark has been, without much exaggeration,
described as having at this time shared with Great Britain and Ishe
United States the commerce of the world. That, however, in this as in
other spheres of effort Bernstorff and those who were associated with
him were animated by something more than the desire to advance the
material interests of their country, is shown by the abolition — in 1792—
of the African slave-trade within the Danish dominions — an example
set, to her lasting glory, by Denmark to the other States of Europe.
At home, Bernstorff's Administration gave signal proofs of the same
enlightened spirit. Like Struensee before him, he dispensed with the
censorship of the Press ; though (as has been noted elsewhere) he used
the power of the Crown in order to punish attacks upon existing
institutions by dismissal or banishment. But his chief and most
beneficent reform — and that which was most directly instrumental in
confining to certain literary and academical circles the sympathy showii
towards the French Revolution within the limits of the Danish monarchy
— was one of which the conception had constantly occupied the elder
Bernstorff, and which he had carried out with remarkable success on the
Zealand estate presented to him by the King. To split up the open
fields, to create free hereditary holdings, and to determine exactly the
villein services due, had long been the cherished aims of enlightened
political thinkers. In spite of the attempts of the elder Bernstorff and
of Struensee, the general condition of the Danish peasantry had sunk
again ; nor was it till the downfall of Guldberg that a sustained effort
was made for its fundamental amelioration. In 1786, the Crown Prince
on the advice of Bernstorff appointed for the purpose a Commission, of
which the leading members were the Prime Minister's friends, Count
Christian Ditlev Frederick Reventlow and Christian Colbjornsen, who
1787-97] Emancipation of tKe peasants. 767
afterwards, as Procurator-General, won renown as the reformer of the
administration of justice. The first results of the Commission were two
royal ordinances, which, in 1787, regulated the relations between the
landlords and their peasant tenantry, greatly restricting the penal
powers of the former. In 1788, despite the opposition of men who
predicted ruin for the army and navy and for agriculture, a third
ordinance released the peasants from ascription to the soil, declaring
the emancipation of those between fourteen and thirty-six years of age
as from January 1, 1800,' or from their discharge from the army, and that
of the rest immediately. Further ordinances removed the prohibition
of the importation of foreign corn into Denmark and southern Norway,
and made a great advance towards complete freedom of trade in cattle.
A long series of enactments followed, whose design was to secure the
legal rights of the peasants, to improve their education, to relieve them
of a portion of the burdens, such as tithe, which still lay upon them,
and to facilitate the acquisition by them of land. Thus was gradually
called into life that flourishing peasantry which became a main element
in the national strength of Denmark. In the Duchies, where the powerful
landed nobility obstinately resisted analogous reforms, they in consequence
progressed more slowly ; but Bernstorff was fortunately here possessed
of special opportunities for asserting the influence of his personality.
A Commission of nobles {Riiterschaft) was appointed in 1796 ; and in
the following year it reported that the landed proprietors of the Duchies,
with but a single exception, were in favour of the emancipation oJF the
peasants. Here, too, the triumph of BemstoriTs ideas was accordingly
assured before his death in 1797, though the emancipation was not
actually promulgated till some years later. Thus the nephew had accom-
plished a work dear to the heart of his uncle and predecessor as well as
to his own, and one which, more than any other of their services to the
Danish monarchy, has enshrined their name in the hearts of its peoples.
758
CHAPTER XXII.
THE HATS AND CAPS AND GUSTAVUS IH.
(1721-92.)
It was not the least of Sweden's misfoi-tunes after the humiliating
Peace of Nystad (August 30, 1721), that the Constitution which was to
be the compensation for all her past sacrifices should contain within it
the elements of most of her future calamities. Violently anti-monarchical,
this Constitution was still anything but democratic. Theoretically, all
power was vested in the people as represented by the Riksdag, or Diet,
consisting of four distinct Orders or Estates — Nobles, Priests, Burgesses,
iand Peasants, deliberating apart. The conflicting interests and mutual
jealousies of these four independent Orders made the work of legislation
exceptionally difficult. No measure could, indeed, become law till it had
obtained the assent of three at least of the four Estates ; but this pro-
vision, which seems to have been designed to protect the lower Orders
against the nobility, produced far greater ills than those which it pro-
fessed to cure. Thus, measures might be passed by a bare majority in
three Estates when a real and substantial majority of all four Estates
might be actually against it. Or, again, a dominant faction in any
three of the Estates might enact laws highly detrimental to the interests
of the remaining Estate ; a danger the more to be apprehended as class
distinctions in Sweden were very sharply defined. The nobility possessed
the usual privileges of the Order. The head of each noble family had
the right to sit in the Riddarhus ; but most of these hereditary legislators
derived a considerable income from the sale of their fullmdkts, or
proxies, to the highest bidder. The invidious and untranslatable epithet
ofrdhe^ sharply distinguished the three lower Estates from the dominant
and privileged class. Of the three, the clergy stood first in rank and
reputation, being by far the best educated and the least servile body in
the kingdom. Yet the hard-worked Swedish ministry was so poorly
paid that the poorest gentleman rarely thought of the Church as a pro-
fession. The Bishops, again, were not lords spiritual, as in England, but
simply the first among equals in their own Order. The burgesses, again,
> QfrcUte is the negative of frdlae, which means privileged, exempted.
1719-20] The Swedish Constitution of 1720. 759
were such in the most literal acceptation of the term, merchants and
traders with the exclusive right of representing in the Riksdag- the
boroughs where they traded. The peasantry also could only be repre-
sented in the Riksdag by peasants. The peasant deputies were, however,
generally excluded from tbe special committees in which the most
intricate and important business of the session was done. Each Estate
was ruled by its Talman, or Speaker, who was elected at the beginning
of each Diet. The Speaker of the House of Nobles, called Landsmar-
skalk, or Marshal of the Diet, was always chairman when the four Orders
met in congress. He also presided, by virtue of his office, in the Hemliga
Utskottet, or "Secret Committee," consisting of 50 nobles, 25 priests;
and 25 burgesses, which during the session of the Riksdag exercised not
only the supreme executive, but also the supreme judicial and legislative,
functions. It prepa,red all bills for the Riksdag, created and deposed the
Ministers, controlled the foreign policy of the nation, and claimed and
often exercised the right of superseding the ordinary Courts of justice.
During the parliamentary recess, however, the executive remained in the
hands of the Rdd or Senate, now limited to 24 members. The King was
obliged to select one of three candidates submittedto him by a committee
of the three higher Orders, to fill up any vacancy in the Rdd.
It is obvious that there was little room in this republican Constitution
for a constitutional monarch in the ordinary sense of the word. The
crowned puppet who possessed a casting-vote in the Senate, over which
he presided, and who was allowed to create nobles at his coronation only,
was rather an ornamental than an essential part of the machinery of
government. ■ ' '
At first, this complicated system worked tolerably well beneath the
firm but cautious control of Count Arvid Beriihard Horn, the Swedish
Chancellor. In his anxiety to avoid embroiling his country abroad;
Horn reversed the traditional foreign policy of Sweden by keeping
France at a distance and drawing near to England. Thusj a twenty
years' war was succeeded by a twenty years' peace, during which the
nation recovered so rapidly from its wounds that ' it began to forget
them. A new race of politicians was now springing up, whose ambition
and martial ardour led them to undervalue the blessings of peace. Since
1719, when the influence of the few great territorial families had been
all but extinguished in a Riddarhtis of needy geiitlemen who claimed to
be their equals, the first Estate became the nursetyj and afterwards the
stronghold, of an Opposition which found its natural lieaders in Count
Carl Gyllenborg, Baron Daniel Niklas von Hopken, and Count Carl
Gustav Tessin. Tessin, the son of Charles XI's great architect, Nicodemus
Tessin, was the Admirable Crichton of the Opposition; and by far their
ablest leader. These men and their followers were liever weary of
ridiculing the timid caution of the aged Count Horn, who sacrificed
everything to perpetuate "an inglorious peace." They nicknamed his
OH. XXII.
760 Rise of the Hat party. [i738-4i
adherents " Night-caps " (a term subsequently softened into Caps),
themselves adopting the sobriquet Hats. These epithets instantly caught
the public fancy. The nickname " Night-cap " seemed exactly to suit
the drowsy policy of old Horn, while the three-cornered hat, worn by
officers and gentlemen, no less happily hit off the manly self-assertion of
the Opposition. From 1738 onwards these party badges were in general
use!. T^he Riksdag, of that year marked a turning-point in Swedish
history. The Hats carried everything before them; Tessin won the
baton of Marshal of the Diet by an enormous majority; the Caps
were almost totally excluded from the Secret Committee; and Count
Horn was compelled to retire from a scene where, for three-and-thirty
years, he had been absolutely dominant.
The foreign policy of the Hats was a return to the old historical
alliance between France and Sweden. This alliance had, on the whole,
been mutually advantageous to both States, so long as Sweden had
remained a great and active military monarchy. When^ however, she
descended to her natural position as a second-rate Power, the French
alliance became a luxury too costly for her straitened means. Horn had
clearly perceived this, and his cautious neutrality was therefore the
wisest statesmanship. But to the politicians who ousted Horn prosperity
without glory was a worthless possession. They aimed at nothing less
than restoring Sweden to her former proud position as a Great Power.
France naturally hailed with satisfaction the rise of a faction which was
content to be her armour-bearer in the north, and the rich golden
streams which flowed continuously from Versailles to Stockholm during
the next two generations were the political life-blood of the Hats. Yet
no alliance was ever so mischievous or illusory. The hopefless blundering
of the Hats upset all the calculations of their ally, and the millions
lavished upon them were so many millions thrown away.
The first great blunder of this party was the hasty and ill-advised
war with Russia. The European complications consequent upon the
all but simultaneous deaths of the Emperor Charles VI and the Russian
Empress Anne seemed to favour their adventurous schemes. Despite
the frantic protests of the Gaps, a project for the conquest of the Baltic
provinces was rushed through the extraordinary Rilcsdag of 1740, and
on July 80, 1741^ war was formally declared against: Russia. A month
later the Rilcsdag was dissolved and the Hat Landsmarskalk, Carl Emil
Lewenhaupt, set off for Finland to take command of the army. The
humiliation of Russia, whose domestic embarrassments were notorious,
was taken iov granted, and it was confidently declared at Stockholm
that, within six months' time, peace would be dictated at the gates of
St Petersburg. But even the first blow was not struck till six months
after the declaration of war, and, then, by the enemy who routed
General Wrangel at Vilmanstrand and captured and destroyed that
frontier fortress. Nothing was done on either side for six months more;
1741-50] The Peace of Abo. 761
and then Lewenhaupt made " a tacit truce " with the Russians through
the mediation of La Chetardie, the French Minister at St Petersburg.
By the time this tacit truce had come to an end, the Swedish forces were
so demoralised that the mere rumour of a hostile attack made them
abandon everything and retire hastily to Helsingfors. Before the end
of the year all Finland was in the hands of the Russians. The fleet,
disabled from the first by a terrible epidemic, had become a huge floating
hospital, and did nothing at all.
To face another Riksdag, with such a war as this upon their con-
sciences, was an ordeal from which the Hats naturally shrank ; but they
had to meet it, and, to do them justice, they showed themselves better
parliamentary than military strategists. A motion for an enquiry into
the conduct of the War was skilfully evaded by obtaining precedence for
the Succession question. (The Queen Consort, Ulrica Leonora, had died
childless on November 24, 1741, and King Frederick who had succeeded
her as sovereign on her abdication (February 29, 1720), was now an old
man.) The Hats immediately opened negotiations with the new Russian
Empress Elizabeth, who consented to restitute all Finland except the
small portion of it eastwards of the river Kymmene, the original boundary
between the two States, on condition that her cousin, Adolphus Frederick
of Holstein-Gottorp, was elected successor to the Swedish throne. The
Hats eagerly caught at the opportunity of recovering the grand duchy,
and their own prestige along with it ; and the Peace of Abo, a singularly
favourable compact in the circumstances (August 7, 1743), put an end to
their first unlucky political speculation.
The new Crown Prince, Adolphus Frederick, was remotely connected
with the ancient dynasty, his grandfather's grandmother having been the
sister of the great Gustavus. Personally he was altogether insignificant,
being chiefly remarkable as the father of Sweden's last great monarch
and as the willing slave of a beautiful and talented, but haughty and
imperious, consort. That consort was Louisa Ulrica, Frederick the
Great's sister, whom Tessin, now Chancellor of Sweden, conducted with
great pomp from Berlin to Stockholm, where (August 27, 1744) she was
married to Adolphus Frederick and speedily gathered around her a
brilliant circle. Her support became the prize for which both the
factions contended; but all the French tastes and sympathies of the
Voltairean Princess drew her towards the Hats, and from 1744 to 1750
the brilliant Tessin became the friend and confidant of the Crown
Princess. The birth of her first-bom son Gustavus (January 24, 1746),
of whom Tessin was forthwith appointed Governor, seemed to be an
additional bond of union between them. Louisa Ulrica now began to
build the most extravagant hopes on the amity of a statesman who was
at once the first Minister of the Crown and the leader of the dominant
Hat party. Unfortunately, she ignored the fact that, for all his courtli-
ness and complacency, a more determined foe of autocracy than Tessin
va. xxii.
762 Accession of Adolphus Frederick. [i7so-6
never existed. Brought up in the belief that monarchy had been the
bane of Sweden, he was firmly convinced that the Constitution of 1720
was the most perfect form of government devisable. The only authority
he recognised was the Riksdag, from which he derived his power, and
to which he was alone responsible. A collision, therefore, between a
would-be autocrat like Louisa Ulrica and a virtual republican like
Tessin was inevitable. It came in the course of 1750, when Tessin,
justly alarmed at the rapprochement between Russia and Denmark,
skilfully interposed with the scheme of a family alliance between the
Swedish and Danish Courts, which Frederick V of Denmark eagerly
welcomed. Tessin, thereupon, arranged a betrothal between his little
pupil and the Danish Princess Royal, without even consulting the parents
of the infant bridegroom. Now, the Danish Court had ever been the
most bitter foe of the House of Holstein-Gottorp ; the Danish King
had even refused to recognise the right of Adolphus Frederick to the
Crown of Sweden. To both the Crown Prince and his consort, therefore,
the Danish match was monstrous. Both parents appealed to the Senate
against the unnatural betrothal, but in vain. Adolphus Frederick was
compelled to sign the detested contract, and to write the usual letters of
congratulation.
For this Louisa Ulrica never forgave Tessin ; and, when in March,
1751, the old King Frederick died, and Adolphus Frederick succeeded him,
the situation became acute. The troubles of the new King began early.
The Estates seemed bent upon going out of their way to mortify him.
They forced upon him a new Chancellor, Count Anders Johan von
Hopken, renowned as the most pregnant and incisive orator of the day ;
they disputed the King's right to appoint his own household or create
peers ; they declared that all state appointments were to go by seniority;
they threatened to use a royal " name-stamp," if his Majesty refused to
append his sign-manual to official documents. In 1766, an attempted
revolution, planned by the Qiieen and a few devoted young noblemen,
was easily and remorselessly crushed. The ringleaders, after being
tortured, were beheaded, and, though the unhappy King did not, as he
anticipated, " share the fate of Charles Stewart ", he was humiliated as
never monarch was humiliated before. The Estates stung him to the '
quick by means of an absolutely unique document which, ostensibly " an
instruction " to the young Crown Prince's new Governor, was, in reality,
a violent tirade against his royal father. Royalty had sunk low when
" most humble and most dutiful subjects " could venture to remind their
" most mighty and gracious King " that Kings in general are "the natural
enemies of their subjects"; that "in free States" they merely "exist on
sufferance"; that, because they are occasionally invested with pomp and
dignity "more for the honour of the realm than for the sake of the
person who may happen to occupy the chief place in the pageant," they
must not therefore imagine that " they are more than men while other
1756-71] Fersen and Pechlm. 763
men are less than worms"; that, "as the glare and glitter of a Court"
may tend to puff them up with the idea that they are made of finer
stuff than their fellow-creatures, they would do well, occasionally, to visit
the lowly hut of the peasant and there learn that it is because of the
wasteful extravagance of a Court that the peasant's loaf is so light and his
burdens are so heavy — and so on through a score of long-winded para-
graphs. This " instruction " was solemnly presented to his Majesty by
the Marshal of the Diet and the Talmen of the three lower Estates, and
he was requested to give it with his own hand to the Prince's new
Governor, Count Carl Fredrik Scheffer.
From 1756 to 1771 the most conspicuous figures in the political
history of Sweden are Count Axel Fredrik af Fersen and Baron Carl
Fredrik Pechlin. Fersen, the descendant of a branch of the Macpherson
family which had been settled in Sweden for generations, was the
worthiest Swedish nobleman of his day. He enjoys the honourable dis-
tinction of having been the purest of politicians at a time when the whole
course of Swedish politics was tainted at its source. His abilities were
considerable. As an orator in an age of orators he had few equals. He
was also an admirable parliamentary tactician. The fatal defects of his
character were a want of initiative, which made him useless in a crisis,
and a dread of responsibility which caused him to decline, persistently,
high offices to which he seemed to be born. Pechlin, a Holsteiner by
descent, was the Henry Fox of Sweden. His whole career was an
unbroken series of treacheries and treasons, and the easy effrontery with
which this political chameleon changed his colours has rarely been sur-
passed. That Pechlin should have wielded such enormous influence as
to receive the nickname of " General of the Riksdoff,"" is significant of
the foulness of the political atmosphere in which he flourished ; but it is
also a proof of the personal talents of the arch-renegade. Neither love
of power nor love of money, but an ingrained passion for intrigue for
its own sake, seems to have been the leading motive of his otherwise
inexplicable conduct.
Fersen was a Hat by conviction, and his generous purse was always
at the disposal of his party. Pechlin professed to be a Cap, and just
then, after an eclipse of twenty-five years, the star of the Caps was once
more in the ascendant. The game of their adversaries was, indeed, by this
time nearly played out. Their last adventure (a heedless plunging into
the Seven Years' War at the instigation of France) had utterly wrecked
their resources. The French subsidies, which might have sufficed for a six
weeks' demonstration (it was too generally assumed that the King of
Prussia would give little trouble to a European coalition), proved quite
inadequate, and, after five unsuccessful campaigns, the Hats were glad
to make peace on a status quo ante bellum basis after throwing away
ie5,000,000 and 40,000 men. When the Riksdag met in 1760. the
indignation against the Hat Cabinet was so violent that an impeachment
764 The "Reduction Riksdag." [i765-6
of them seemed inevitable ; but Pechlin, suddenly changing sides at the
very moment of the Cap triumph, contrived to pull the Hats out of the
mire by a combination of the most intricate and amazing intrigues ; at
the same time, however, involving everything in such inextrica,ble con-
fusion that the session was brought to a close by the mutual consent of
both the exhausted factions. It had Tasted twenty months, and its sole
result was to bolster up the Hat Government for another four years.
But the day of reckoning could not be postponed for ever, and, when
the Estates met again in 1765, the Caps came into power at last. Their
leader Thure Rudbeck was elected Marshal of the Diet over Fersen by a
large majority, and, out of the 100 seats in the Secret Committee, the
Hats only succeeded in securing 10. The Caps at once struck at the
weak point of their opponents by ordering a Budget report to be made ;
and it was speedily found that the whole financial system of the Hats
had been based upon reckless improvidence and wilful misrepresentation,
and that the only fruits of their long rule was a doubling of the National
Debt, with such a depreciation of the note circulation that £\^ in paper
was worth only £^ in specie. This startling revelation led to a general
retrenchment, carried into effect with a drastic thoroughness which has
earned for this Parliament the name of the '■ Reduction Riksdag."" By
this means the Caps succeeded in transferring £500,000 from the pockets
of the merchants and landowners of the Hat party to the empty Treasury,
considerably reducing the National Debt, and reestablishing some sort
of equilibrium between revenue and expenditure.
The "Reduction Riksdag"" rose in October, 1766, and with it the
short-lived popularity of the Caps passed away. Their sweeping system
of retrenchment had irritated everyone who had anything to lose, while
the severity with which it had been applied had caused universal suffering.
Nevertheless, their domestic policy was, in the main, a commendable
attempt to grapple with abuses of long standing against which they
had always protested. Their worst condemnation, from a statesman's
point of view, was their short-sighted, suicidal, foreign policy.
Sweden at this time had still a voice iii European affairs. Although
no longer a first-class Power she was still the foremost among the second-
class Powers, and the Swedish alliance, depreciated as it might be, was
at any rate a marketable article. Her Pomeranian possessions afforded
her an easy ingress into the very heart of the Empire, arid her Finnish
frontier was not many leagues from the Russian capital; A watchful
neutrality which did not venture much beyond defensive alliances was
therefore Sweden's safest policy, and this the older Caps had always
recognised. But, when the Hats became the henchmen of France in the
north, their opponents needed a protector strong enough to countervail
the French influence ; and so it came about that the younger Caps flung
themselves into the arms of Russia, overlooking the fact that even a
pacific union with Russia was far more to be feared than a martial alliance
1763-8] Resignation of Adolphus Frederich. 765
with France. For France was too distant to be really dangerous. She
sought an ally in Sweden, and it was her endeavour to make that ally
as strong as possible. An alliance with Russia, on the other hand, meant
absolute subservience, for Russia was deliberately aiming at the hegemony
of the north. These were the days of the famous " Northern Accord,"
the invention of Count Nikita Panin, Catharine II's political mentor
from 1763 to 1781, which, although never fully carried out, profoundly
affected the politics of northern and central Europe, and which was to
attract Poland and Sweden within the orbit of Russia under much the
same conditions. Both Powers were to be kept strong enough to be
serviceable, but not strong enough to be dangerous, to Russian interests.
In each case the maintenance of a vicious Constitution under the express
guarantee of Russia was to be the curb upon too ambitious a progress.
This double arrangement first appears in the secret clauses of the Treaty
of 1763, between Russia and Prussia, on the eve of the election of
Stanislaus Poniatowski to the throne of Poland. In 1766, the Caps
were induced, by a secret under s banding, to accept the Russian guarantee
for the Swedish Constitution also.
Fortunately for Sweden, the Cap Government was of too brief dura-
tion to do much mischief. An Order in Council issued by the Senate,
declaring that all complaints against the measures of the last Riksdcig
should be punished with fine and imprisonment, brought matters to a
head. The King, secretly instigated by the Crown Prince Gustavus and
the Hats, presented (February 9, 1768) a message to the Senate urging
it to convoke the Riksdag instantly, as the only available means of finding
relief for the great and growing distress of the nation under the new
economical system. The Senate, after a week's reflexion, informed his
Majesty that it saw no reason for departing from the precept of the
last Riksdag, which had fixed October, 1770, for the convocation of
its successor. On December 14, further encouraged by the arrival of
the new French ambassador, de Modene, with a well-filled purse, the
King, accompanied by the Crown Prince, once more urged the Senate
to convoke an extraordinary Riksdag. Upon their still refusing to
comply with his request, he formally abdicated, at the same time
forbidding the Senate to make use of his name in any of its resolutions.
From December 15 to 21 Sweden was without a legal government.
The capital was much disturbed. Crowds of people surrounded the
Palace, where the Senate passed the time in anxious deliberation, issuing
orders which were no longer obeyed, the various Departments of State
and the magistrates of Stockholm resolutely refusing to accept a name-
stamp as a substitute for the royal sign-manual. Still the Senate held
out. But, when the Treasury refused to part with a single dollar
more, when Count Fersen, as Colonel of the Guards, appeared in the
Council-chamber and declared he could no longer answer for the troops,
the stubborn resistance of the Caps was, at last, broken. On December 19
OB. XXII,
766 EeactwnB,iksdabg.-Deafh of A dolphus Frederick. [1V69-71
they resolved to convoke the Estates for April 19, 1769. On the 21st,
Adolphus Frederick reappeared in the Council-chamber and resumed
the Crown.
Both parties now prepared for the elections, which were to decide
whether the nation preferred to be governed by a King or a name-
stamp. On the eve of the contest there was a general assembly of the
Hats at the French Embassy where de Modene provided them with
6,000,000 7iw^*, but not till they had signed in his presence an under-
taking to reform the Constitution in a monarchical sense. Still more
energetic was Russia, on the other side. The Russian ambassador,
Count Andrei Ivanovich Osterman, scattered his roubles with a lavish
hand ; and so lost to all sense of patriotism were the Caps that they
threatened all who dared to vote against them with the vengeance of
the Russian Empress, and fixed Norrkoping, instead of Stockholm, as
the place of meeting for the Riksdag, because it was more accessible
to the Russian fleet. But it soon became evident that the Caps were
playing a losing game; and, when the Riksdag met at Norrkoping,
they found themselves in a minority in all four Estates. In the contest
for the Marshalship of the Diet, the verdict of the last Riksdag was
exactly reversed, Fersen, the Hat candidate, defeating the Cap leader
Rudbeck by 234 votes, though Russia spent j&ll,500 to secure his
election.
The first act of the Riksdag was to move a humble address of
thanks to the King " because he had not shut his ears to the bitter cry
of the nation." The Caps got short shrift; and the note which the
Russian, Prussian and Danish ministers presented to the Estates, pro-
testing, in menacing terms, against any reprisals on the part of the
triumphant faction, only hastened the fall of the Governmient. The
Cap Senate resigned en masse, to escape impeachment ; and the Riksdag
appointed an exclusively Hat administration. On June 1, the Reaction
Riksdag, as it is generally called, removed to the capital ; and the French
ambassador and the Crown Prince hereupon called on the new Senators
to redeem their promise as to a reform of the Constitution. But, when
the Hats, towards the end of the session, reluctantly and half-heartedly,
brought the matter forward, the Riksdag suddenly seemed to be stricken
with paralysis. Impediments, not unwelcome to the party chiefs, multi-
plied at every step ; and on January SO, 1770, the Reaction Riksdag,
after a barren ten mouths' session, dissolved itself amidst the most
chaotic confusion.
A little more than twelve months later (February 12, 1771),
Adolphus Frederick expired. The suddenness of the catastrophe gave
rise, at first, to sinister rumours; but the highly-spiced condiments
with which the deceased monarch had overloaded a weak stomach
constituted the only poison which killed him. The elections on the
demise of the Crown resulted in a partial victory for the Caps, especially
lV7i] Character of Gustavus III. 767
among the lower three Orders; but in the Estate of peasants their
majority was very small, while the mass of the nobility was still dead
against them. Nothing could be done, however, till the new King had
returned from France, where (from February 4 to March 25) he had
shone in the brilliant firmament of Parisian society as a star of the first
magnitude. The charming young Prince had captivated hearts and
minds alike by his grace, wit, and savmr-faire. Even Madame du Deffand
was satisfied with him. In Sweden also his abilities were already gene-
rally recognised and inspired equal hope and fear. Everyone felt that
with Gustavus a new and incalculable factor had entered into Swedish
politics.
Gustavus III was born on January 24, 1746. All his Governors
and tutors — and among them we find the most eminent statesmen and
the most learned scholars of their day — were struck by the lad's extra-
ordinary precocity, vivid imagination, and retentive memory. But an
abhorrence of everything requiring sustained mental exertion, the dis-
turbing interference of the factions, who repeatedly changed his tutors
to suit the ever varying political atmosphere of the moment, and his
own natural indolence, prevented him from making a proper use of the
talents of his preceptors, as he himself in his memoirs frankly acknow-
ledges. Another most curious feature in the child's character was his
passion for the theatre. " No sooner has he seen a play," writes his
second Governor, Count SchefFer, "than his memory absorbs the whole
of it, often retaining long portions of the dialogue.... Often, while he is
being dressed and undressed, you may hear him solemnly declaim the
monologues of queens and princesses." A love of dramatic display
was, indeed, to characterise him throughout life. Somewhat later, we
remark in him a careful cultivation of that natural charm of manner
which was to make him so irresistibly fascinating. French he learnt
from his very cradle, and with the literature of France he was intimately
acquainted at a very early age. There was scarcely a French book of
any note that he had not read before he was five-and-twenty. On the
other hand, the Prince had next to no political education. The little
he knew of state-craft he had picked up as best he could. The leading
politicians of both parties looked askance at the keen-witted aspiring
youth, and threw every possible obstacle in his way. The Estates even
refused him permission to study the science of war in the army of his
uncle, Frederick the Great, lest he should learn to undervalue the
blessings of a free Constitution in that school of enlightened despotism.
Thus, full of ambitious energy, yet constrained to stand in the back-
ground, Gustavus learnt betimes to weigh his words, disguise his
thoughts, and keep a constant watch upon himself and others. He
followed with the keenest interest the ever shifting course of events;
carefully studied the characters of the politicians by whom those events
were controlled, and resolved to seize the first opportunity for rescuing
en. xxn.
768 Gustavus' first Riksdag. [i'7'7i-2
the monarchy from the constitutional bondage under which it languished.
He took the first step in this direction, before he quitted France, by
inducing Louis XV to pay, unconditionally, the outstanding Swedish
subsidies, at the rate of IJ million livres annually, commencing from
January, 1772^ and to send as ambassador to Stockholm Count de
Vei-gennes, one of the great names of French diplomacy, to support him
in the coming struggle with Russia, and her partisans, which he already
foresaw, <
On June 6, 1771, Gustavus III entered his capital. A fortnight later,
in full regalia,, and with the silver sceptre of Gustavus Adolphus in his
hand, he formally opened his first Parliament in a speech which awakened
strange and deep emotions in all who heard it. It was the first time
for more than a century that a Swedish King had addressed a Swedish
Riksdag from the throne in its native language. After a touching allusion
to his father's death the orator thus proceeded : " Born and bred among
you, I have learned, from my tenderest youth, to love my country, and
hold it the highest privilege to be bom a Swede, the greatest honour to
be the first citizen of a free people....! have seen many lands. I have
studied the... institutions... of many peoples. I have found that neither
the pomp and magnificence of monarchy, nor the most frugal economy,
nor the most overflowing exchequer, can ensure content or prosperity
where patriotism, where unity, is wanting. It rests with you to become
the happiest nation in the world. Let this Riksdag be for ever
memorable in our annals for the sacrifice of all party animosities, of
all interested motives, to the common weal. So far as in me lies, I will
contribute to reunite your diverging opinions, to reconcile your estranged
aiFections, so that the nation may ever look back with gratitude on a
Parliament on whose deliberations I now invoke the blessings of the
Most High."
The determination of the royal peace-maker to reconcile the
jarring factions was perfectly sincere. He began by inducing them
to appoint a " Composition Committee" with a view to the formation of
a coalition Ministry, which was to divide all offices of public emolument
equally between the Hats and Caps. The scheme w£is frustrated by
the preposterous demands of the Caps. Pechlin, who had now gone
over to that party, seemed bent upon breaking up the Composition
project altogether, and the King had to interfere to prevent a violent
collision between him and Fersen. Still more dictatorial became the
tone of the Caps when its nominees, after a severe struggle, were elected
speakers of the three lower Estates. Crowds of deserters at once passed
over into the ranks of the Caps> who forthwith endeavoured, under every
imaginable pretext, to invalidate the elections of their opponents. In
this way, they at last obtained a decisive majority in the lower three
Orders.
It was now absolutely necessary to snatch the Riddarfms from the
1771-2] Triumph of the Caps. 769
grasp of the triumphant Caps. If the first Estate were lost, all was lost.
Yet lost it must be without money, and no money was forthcoming,
the new French ambassador, much to the consternation of the royalists,
having arrived (June 8) almost empty-handed. Gustavus saved the
situation by borrowing 6^200,000 from the Dutch banking-house of
Hameca on the sole security of the first instalment of the French
subsidy, which was not due till January 1, 1772. With the aid of this
bribing fund, he managed to secure the election of the royal nominee as
Marshal of the Diet by 524 votes to 450. This, the first victory of the
Court party, was more than neutralised, however, by the result of the
elections to the Secret Committee, where the Caps triumphed in the
lower Orders and obtained a majority in the Committee (54 to 46)
sufficient to outvote their colleagues. This success cost Catharine II
df 40,000, and she considered it cheap at the price.
Gustavus now desired to terminate, as soon as possible, a Riksdag
from which he had evidently little to hope and everything to fear. The
Estates had been summoned ostensibly to bury his father and crown
himself. One half of their work had, therefore, already been done. It
only remained for them to prepare "the Royal Assurance," or Coronation
Oath. They were shrewd enough to recognise that this was their trump
card, and they determined to make the most of it. As finally presented
to the King, it contained three new clauses which can only be described
as subversive. The first of these clauses bound the King to reign in
future " uninterruptedly," so as to make a future abdication impossible.
The second bound him to abide by the decision^ not "of the Estates of
the Realm altogether" as heretofore, but simply "of the Estates of the
Realm," i.e. a majority of the Esta,tes. This clause was to enable the
lower three Estates to rule without, and even in spite of, the first Estate.
The third clause required his Majesty, in all cases of preferment, to be
guided "solely" by merit. In all former coronation oaths the word
"principally" had been used. This new clause aimed at the very root of
oligarchical privilege, by placing " noble " and " non-nobk " on precisely
the same footing. Two things were evident from these radical propo-
sitions : the strife of Hats and Caps had lapsed into a still more ominous
strife of classes, and the lower Orders were resolved to fight a outrance
for their own hands.
All through the summer and autumn of 1771 the Estates were
engaged in wrangling over the coronation oath. A well-meant attempt
of the King, at the end of the year, to mediate between the Orders,
as he had already mediated between the factions, only resulted in an
unseemly collision between him and the Talman of the Estate of burgesses,
Carl Fredrik Sebald. After the brief Christmas recess, the interminable
discussion was renewed. Finally, on February 24, 1772, the first Estate,
from sheer weariness, conceded, virtually, everything that the lower
Estates demanded, though only by a majority of 32 in a House of 686
o. M. H. VI. ca. xxii, 49
770 The design of Sprengtporten and Toll. [1772
members. So late as February 11th Gustavus had resolved rather to
resign his crown than sign the new coronation oath; on March 3 he
signed it with cheerful alacrity, without even taking the trouble to read
it. As a matter of fact, he was hesitating on the brink of a revolution.
The jolt which finally impelled him to that desperate plunge was the
violent dismissal of the Hat Senate, the last asylum of the monarchy
and the gentry, on April 25, 1772.
The situation of the young King was now truly pitiable. He was
little better than a hostage, for the maintenance of the existing anarchy,
in the hands of Ministers who were the humble servants of the Russian
Empress. He was completely isolated in the midst of three States —
Russia, Prussia, and Denmark — which had bound themselves jointly
by treaty to uphold the existing Swedish Constitution and treat any
attempt to modify it, either from within or from without, as a casus belli.
The time had arrived for Gustavus to translate his idea of a revolution
into action.
Two men of determined character and infinite resource, Baron Jakob
Magnus Sprengtporten, Colonel of the Nyland Dragoons in Finland, and
ex-ranger Johan KristoiFer Toll, both of them having old scores to settle
with the dominant Ciips, were the proftipters and original contrivers of
the picturesque coup d^Hat which was to make Gustavus III a European
celebrity. The scheme, matured shortly after the coronation (May 29,
1772), was two-fold. Sprengtporten undertook to cross over to Finland
and seize Sveaborg, as a base for further Operations, while Toll was to
secure the Scanian fortress of Christianstadt as a rendezvous for the
conspirators in Sweden. This done, Sprengtporten and Toll were to
advance simultaneously against Stockholm from the east and south,
overthrow the Government and establish a limited monarchy in its stead.
So uncertain were the arch-conspirators of the fitness of Gustavus for so
perilous an enterprise that they resolved to leave- as little as possible to
chance, by keeping him in the background till the last moment when, as
Sprengtporten expressed it, "we must thrust a weapon into his hand and
trust to him to use it." Neverthelessj fate decreed that Gustavus, after
all, should play the leading part in the whole aifair.
Sprengtporten and Toll, by sheer bluffj achieved all they set out
to do. Then, contrary winds detained Sprengtporten in Finland, and,
before Toll could assemble an army round Christianstadt, the Cap
Senate at Stockholm was warned by the English minister. Sir John
Goodrich, that a mysterious plot was afoot to overthrow the Govern-
ment. The contingency so much dreaded by Sprengtporten bad actuall;^
arrived : the King found himself isolated in the midst of his enemies.
On the evening of August 18, Gustavus was secretly warned that the
Government intended to arrest him within twelve hours. His resolution
was at once taken. He would strike the decisive blow himself, without
waiting for his confederates. All the officers in the capital whom he
1772] The Revolution of August 19. iTTi
could trust were commanded to meet him, at 10 o'clock on the following
mortiing, in the gr^at square facing the Arsenal. Some two-hundred
of them obeyed the summons ; and forthwith he led them to the guard-
room of the barracks where, in twenty minutes, he won over the Guards
by a splendid speech, depicting in vivid colours the unhappy situation
of Sweden. "If," cried he, in conclusion, "you will follow me as your
forefathers followed Gustavus Vasa and Gustavus Adolphus, I will
venture my life-blood for the safety and honour of my country." There
was a brief pause ; and then, with a single exception, they declared theii"
willingness to follow him. Thereupon, after detaching a picket to arrest
the Senate (it was holding a council at the Palace, and quietly submitted
to be locked in), he dictated a new oath of allegiance in the guard-room,
absolving the officers from their allegiance to the Estates, and binding
them to obey solely their lawful King Gustavus III and defend him and
the new Constitution which he promised to give them. The soldiers on
the parade-ground followed the example of their officers, and received
a ducat apiece, with six rounds of ammunition.
From the guard-room Gustavus, after occupying the Arsenal on his
way, proceeded to the Artillery-yard, which he had fixed upon as his
headquarters. Here he tied a white handkerchief round his left arm as
a mark of recognition, and bade all his friends do the same. In less
than an hour the whole city had donned the white handkerchief. All
the gates of Stockholm were then closed ; the fleet, anchored off the
Skepperholm, was secured; and, after making a complete tour of the
capital, the King returned to the Palace absolute master of the situation.
On the evening of the 20th, heralds perambulated the city proclaiming
that the Estates were to meet in the Rikssaal at four o'clock on the
following day. Extraordinary and elaborate precautions were taken on
this occasion. The principal thoroughfares were lined by battalions of
the guard. The Rikssaal itself was surrounded by a park of artillery.
One-hundred grenadiers stood behind the guns with lighted matches.
On the 21st the terrified Riksdagsmen crept, bjr twos and threes, into
their places, between rows of glitteriiig bayonets. A few minutes after
the Estates had assembled, the King, in full regalia, appeared, took his
seat on the throne, and delivered that famous philippic which is one
of the masterpieces of Swedish oratory. Not since Gustavus Vasa had
trounced the Estates at the Riksdag- of Vaster&s in 1527 had a Swedish
parliament received such a reprimand from the Throne. There was a
reproach in every eloquent sentence, a sting in every stately period.
His audience were made to feel that the King regarded them as either
dupes or traitors.
When Gustavus had finished speaking, he ordered that the new
Constitution, his own handiwork, should be read to the Estates, and,
without allowing them a moment for deliberation, demanded whether
they would now solemnly engage to keep it inviolably. The Estates
CH. XXII. 49 — 2
772 The Constitution of HI 2. [ym
responded by a loud and unanimous " Yes ! " thrice repeated. It was
then signed and sealed by the four Talmen ; and the King, reverently
removing his crown, beckoned to Archdeacon Liitkeman to intone a
Te Deiim.
Briefly, the new Constitution restored to the Crown most of its
ancient rights, and converted a weak and despotic republic into a strong
and limited monarchy, in which the balance of power inclined, on the
whole, to the side of the monarch. The King again became the source
of promotion, the commander-in-chief of the forces, the sole medium of
communication with foreign Powers, The appointment and dismissal of
Ministers, including the Senators and the four Talmen, was transferred
from the Estates to the Crown. The summoning and the dismissal of the
Riksdag once more became royal prerogatives. The deliberations of the
Estates were to be confined exclusively to the propositions which the King
might think fit to lay before them. But these large powers were subject
to many important checks. No new law could be imposed, no old law
repealed, no offensive war undertaken, no extraordinary war subsidy
levied, without the previous consent of the Estates. The Estates alone
could tax themselves; they had the absolute charge of the Bank of
Sweden, and the inalienable right of controlling the national expendi-
tm:e. Moreover, the King pledged himself never to alter his own
Constitution without the consent of the Riksdag, and never to quit the
realm without the consent of the Senate. But, inasmuch as the Senators
were henceforth to be appointed by the King and be responsible to him
alone, a Senate in opposition to the Crown was barely conceivable. It
is no reproach to Gustavus that eleven of the new Senators had been
Hats and only five Caps, for both Hats and Caps had now ceased to
exist. A proclamation forbade, peremptorily, the use of "those odious
and abominable names " which had " smitten the land with the most
hideous abuses ever known in a Christian community." Finally, the
new Constitution introduced many, salutary reforms. The Judges were
made immovable. All extraordinary tribunals were declared to be
unlawful. A Habeas Corpus Act was introduced. No special privileges
were henceforth to be conferi'ed on any one of the four Estates without
the consent of the other three. The weak points of the Constitution
were the vagueness of some of its paragraphs, which did not sufficiently
define the limits between the prerogative and parliamentai-y privilege,
and the hampering restraint upon the royal power as regards offensive
warfare, which was to have serious consequences in the future. Diplo-
matically regarded, the Swedish Revolution was the first political
triumph of France since 1740. It was, at the same time, a distinct
rebuff to Russia. Panin always insisted that the coup d'etat of 1772
was the one really serious contretemps of the reign of Catharine II, inas-
much as it destroyed the Russian influence in the extreme north. The
Empress herself, when she first heard of it, regarded an immediate war
1772-8] Reforms of Gustavus III. 773
with Sweden as inevitable, and actually detached nine infantry regiments
from Rumyantseff's army on the Danube, and sent them to PskofF in
view of an expected Swedish invasion. But Gustavus was not prepared
at present to imperil his newly won position by any fresh adventures,
while Turkish and Polish complications were to tie the hands of
Catharine for many years to come.
Secure, at last, from foreign interference, the young monarch was
now free to, throw himself, heart and soul, into that ambitious plan of
reform which was the necessary consequence of the Revolution and its
triumphant vindication. A fairer and wider field of operation for an
ardent and capable reformer than that presented by Sweden in 1772 is
scarcely imaginable. Half a century of misrule had dislocated the whole
machinery of government, given the licence of prescription to the worst
abuses, and brought the State to the very verge of financial and political
bankruptcy. The first two measures of the new Government, the aboli-
tion of judicial torture and the establishment of the freedom of the
Press, showed that, at least, it had a libetal and progressive programme.
The regulation of the currency was the King's next care. He began by
appointing a Commission of six experts to report on the subject. After
three months of incessant labour, the Commission was ready with its
report, which deprecated as mischievous any attempt to redeem the notes
of the Bank of Sweden for many years to come. Gustavus, ill pleased
with this report, asked the chairman whether it represented the
unanimous opinion of the Commission. He replied that the junior
commissioner, Johan Liljencrantz, had alone refused to sign it. The
King immediately asked Liljencrantz why he had withheld his signature.
He replied that he had done so, because he was persuaded that the
redemption of the enormous note currency, although a difficult, was by
no means an impossible, operation. The upshot of it weis that the
King resolved to give Liljencrantz' project a fair chance, and, when the
Senate twice refused to consent to it, Gustavus boldly took the matter
into his own hands, created a new Department of Finiahce, of which he
made Liljencrantz the first President, and ordered him to carry his
scheme into execution. The result more than justified the King's
venture. Favoured by a succession of good harvests, and assisted by
three loans from Holland, on uilprecedently advantageous terms, Liljen-
crantz, despite the constant resistance ' of the Senate and the reiterated
protests and Warnings of the Bank Directors, persisted in his endeavours
and, after six years of incessant labour, was able to lay before the
Riksdag of 1778 a national balance-sheet which has been well described
as " an artistic masterpiece in the highest finance." Briefly, it was found
that the whole of the State's debt to the Bank, contracted during the
last fifty years, had been discharged, and there was a substantial surplus
in hand. When the LUndsmarskalk, in the name of the Finance Com-
mittee of the Riksdag, proceeded to thattk the King for having restored
774 Reforms of Gustavus III. [1772-4
the national credit and reestablished the equilibrium of the finances,
Gustavus beckoned to Liljencrantz to come forward and stand on his left,
in order that " he who had done the work might also reiceive the praise,"
Next to/the finances, it was the judicature which most needed
reformation, and here the King again took the initiative, though his
labours were considerably lightened by the zeal and intelligence of
Joachim Vilhelm Liliestr&le, whom he discovered and employed as his
first Vicar-General in civil and ecclesiastical matters. LiliestrSle was
instructed to make a thorough inquisition into the condition of the
magistracy and the general administration of justice. He discovered,
inter alia, that a very large percentage, of the I^cmdshofdingar, or Lord
Lieutenants of the counties, and their deputies were, practically, absentees;
that charitable funds had been appropriated wholesale by their adminis-
trators ; that many districts had been untaxed while other districts had
been taxed ten times over during the same period; that scores of parsonages
were in ruins ; that in one diocese there had been no episcopal visitation
for twelve years ; that the rich see of Linkpping had derived not the
slightest spiritual benefit from its revenues for nearly a century. The
maladministration of justice was found to be ;Universal. The complaints
brought against one of the two Supreme Coui'ts, the Gbta Hofrixtt, were,
in particular, so scandalous that the King felt bound to impeach the
whole tribunal before the full Senate, under his personal presidency.
The trial, which bc;gan on November 2, 1774, with open doors, lasted
six weeks, and resulted in the disbenching of five of the eight judges,
while the remaining three were heavily fined.
No less sweeping and drastic than his civil reforms were the military
reforms of Gustavus IIL And, certainly, the state of the national defences
had never been so deplorable as when Gustavus ascended the throne.
The military spirit which had predominated in Sweden under Charles XII
had been succeeded by a mania for economy. , Every penny spent on
armaments was grudged and, carped at. The standard of military
education was lower than it had ever been. The officers spent three-
quarters of their time on furlough ; the men were very often not
manoeuvred from one year's end to another. The superior oflicers had no
hold upon subalterns who were their accusers and judges in the Riksdag.
Seniority was the sole title to promotion, and the various attempts to
mitigate its mischievous consequences had only produced the monstrous
"accord" arrangement, almost identical with the extinct British Purchase
system. Officers wishing to retire: were permitted to receive from their
successors a certain bounty, or accord. The whole arrangement was
transparently unmilitary, as an instance, of a kind by no means
uncommon, will show. An officer who has, perhapsj vegetated through
half a century of inglorious peace retires at last upon the accord paid to
him by his successor. That successor is killed shortly afterwards on
active service. Had he survived, he, top, in course of time, would have
17V2-9] Reforms of Gustavus III. 775
comfortably retired in turn on his accord ; but death, by cutting him off
on the battle-field, deprives him of his perquisite. Thus the officer dying
in defence of his country fared worse than the officer who avoided the
foe. The "accord" system was abolished by the Royal Decree of
March 21, 1774; and, in the same year, a Commission of National
Defence, ultimately presided over by Toll, from which all the new measures
of army reform were to originate, was appointed by the King.
Even more indispensable to the security of Sweden than a strong
army was a strong fleet. France expressly stipulated that three-quarters
of her annual subsidies to Gustavus should be spent upon the Swedish
navy. Something had already been done in this direction by the great
naval engineer, August Ehrensvard, who, recognising that Finland was
Sweden's weak point, made the fortifying of the grand duchy against a
Russian attack his main object. It was he who first hit upon the idea of
building a Skargdrdsflotta, or galley flotilla, to ply among the shallow
rock-studded waters of the Gulf of Finland, and, in case of a war with
Russia, to cooperate with an invading army ; while the Orlogsflotta,
or man-of-war fleet, dealt with the enemy in the open sea. He was
also the constructor of the gigantic fortress of Sveaborg, whose im-
pregnable harbour was to serve as a refuge, in case of defeat, for
the galley flotilla. Gustavus followed energetically in the footsteps of
Ehrensvard, by reforming the whole naval administration. The Admiralty
was transferred from Karlskrona to Stockholm for better supervision.
The building of new ships of war under the direction of Frederick Henry
Chapman, the son of an English naval officer settled in Sweden, proceeded
with extraordinary rapidity; and the superb docks at Karlskrona were
completed by the architect Thunberg, who was ennobled for a piece of
work comparable even to the works of Ehrensvard. Nor was the galley
flotilla overlooked. A plan for placing the whole of the Skarg&rdsflotta
on a war footing was elaborated by Admiral Henrik af TroUe, and
carried out with masterly thoroughness.
Gustavus could now meet his people with perfect confidence. On
October 19, 1778, the session of the first Parliament on the new model was
opened. Gustavus laid before the Estates a clear and succinct account of
the numerous reforms which had been carried out since the last Riksdag.
If it had been impossible to find a remedy for every evil within so short
a time, they were to recollect "that Kings are but men, and that time
alone can heal the wounds which time has inflicted." The peroration
exhoi'ted to mutual confidence and concord. The session lasted till
January 17, 1779, when the King dismissed the Riksdagsmen to their
homes with every expression of goodwill.
Never had a Parliament been more obsequious, or a King more
gracious. There was no room for a single " No " during the whole
session. For the first time for fifty years, the course of Swedish politics
had run smoothly and equably in its natural channel. Everyone,
776 The Riksdags of 1778 and 1786. [i778-86
apparently, had come to the Riksdag oi 1778 only to approve and
applaud. There was scarcely a glimpse of a legitimate Parliamentary
Opposition. One single party chief, the venerable Axel Fredrilc af
Fersen, had, indeed, warily raised his head, but only, as warily, to with-
draw it. "I have reached the happiest stage of my career," wrote
Gustavus to a friend. " My people are convinced that I desire nothing
but to promote their welfare and establish their freedom on a firm
basis^" Nevekheless, this harmonious Riksdag had roughly shaken the
popularity of Gustavus III. Short as the session had been, it was quite
long enough to opeil the eyes of the deputies to the fact that their
political supremacy had departed. They had changed places with the
King. He was now indeed their soverdgn lord, and the jealousy with
which he guarded, the vigour with which he enforced, his prerogatives,
plainly showed that he meant to remain such. Even the minority, who
were prudent and patriotic enough to acquiesce in the change, by no
means relished it. The inevitable explosion came eight years later, when
Gustavus, very reluctantly and against his better judgment, but yielding
to the urgent representations of Liljencrantz, who required the assistance
of the Estates to balance the finances, and of Toll, whose scheme of
military organisation was at a standstill for want of funds, summoned
"that mutinous and iingrateful Riksdag'" from which he subsequently
dated all his misfortunes.
On May 6, 1786, the second Gustavan Riksdag, on the new model,
was "blown in'." On the following day, Gustavus' new Vicar-General,
Elis Schroderheim, read to the Houses a skilfully worded retrospect of
all that had been done during the last eight years. The retrospect, after
enumerating a whole series of successful economic and social reforms,
dwelt with especial pride and satisfaction on the imprpved condition of
the national defences. Since 1778, no fewer than 11 litters, 10 frigates,
7 sloops and a multitude of transport- vessels had been fully equipped,
while 3 more liners and 3 frigates would be ready by the end of the
current year. The new docks at Karlskrona, then the largest in the
world, had also been completed ; Finland had been provided with a more
efficient galley flotilla; the principal fortresses had been put upon a
war footing; the artillery had been reorganised; three large camps
had been formed to promote military manoeuvres on a large scale. To
enable him to continue as he had begun, the King requested the assent
of the Estates to a numbei* of propositions, or Bills, of which three only
need be specified here. The first aimed at increasing the mobility of the
army by commuting the transport obligations of the small landowners
into small cash payments ; the second desired the Estates to grant the
usual subsidies until the next Riksdag, instead of for a fixed period ; the
1 To "blow in" and "blow out" (i.e. with trunipets) were the technical
expressions for opening and closing the Riksdag.
1772-86] Gradual passage to semi-absolute government. 777
third offered to surrender the government monopoly in the distillation
of spirits (the single economic blunder, though a serious one, of
Gustavus' reign) in return for an annual grant to the Crown of =£"140,000.
All these propositions were either rejected outright or so attenuated as
to be of little value. It at once became evident to Gustavus that nothing
was to be done with a Riksdag which, already troublesome, might, at
any moment, become dangerous. On July 5 he dissolved it, after an
abortive session of two months.
If Gustavus III, at this point of his career, could have seen his way
to retreat within the bounds of a strictly limited constitutional monarchy
with honour and safety, he would doubtless have done so. But, in truth,
such a retreat was scarcely possible. In 1772, the King had deliberately
placed himself %t the mercy of the Estates by not only relinquishing to
them the power of the purse, but also by solemnly engaging not to
engage in an offensive war without their consent. It hsis been well
observed that to Russia her knowledge that her north-western frontier
could not be attacked without the permission of the Swedish Riksdag
was worth as much as an army corps. Even before 1786, Gustavus had
begun to realise that circumstances might perhaps compel him to ride
rough-shod over his own Constitution. As the lesser of two evils he
finally resolved to curtail the liberty in order to secure the independence
of the nation. But the passage from semi-constitutionalism to semi-
absolutism was so cautious and gradual, legal forms were so carefully
retained long after they had lost all their force, that very few people
were really aware of the great change that was silently proceeding. The
King's first care was to remove, dexterously, from the Administration all
the friends of the old system, and surround his throne with men of his
own way of thinking. Thus Liljencrantz, who was growing restive at
the increasing extravagance of the Court, was superseded by the more
pliant Eric Ruuth ; and the office of Chancellor, after the death (1784)
of its last holder. Count Philip Creutz, was left vacant, Gustavus
considering that the dignity it conferred was too great for a subject.
Toll was now the man on whom the King principally relied. That great
administrator was the soul of the secret council of four, which practically
ruled Sweden during the King's long continental tour (September, 1783,
to July, 1784), and at the end of 1785 he was made War Minister. But,
although the chief, Toll was by no means the only royal counsellor, It
is about this time that we find very near to the King two clergymen
whose rare political genius Gustavus himself had been the first to
discover, and on whom he was to lean more and more as his former
friends fell away from him ; namely, Olaf Wallqvist, whom he created
Bishop of Wexio, and Carl Gustaf Nordin, who preferred, for the present,
to remain a simple prebendary. With a nice discrimination of their
respective characters, Gustavus employed the masterful and eloquent
prelate to defend the royal measures in public, while the quiet self-effacirig
778 The Russian War and the Anjala Confederation. [i782-8
prebendary, whom Wallqvist feared and hated as a rival, was the King's
secret, indispensable adviser whose opinion was always taken beforehand.
Another invaluable coadjutor, by reason of his fine courage and absolute
devotion, was the dashing royal favourite Gustaf Maurice Armjfelt, whom
Gustavus attached to his Court In 1782,
So early as 1784, Gustavus had made up his mind that a rupture
with Russia was inevitable. On his return to Sweden, in 1785, he
began to prepare for war, pushing on his preparations with the speed and
secrecy of a conspiracy. Toll alone was privy to his master's designs,
though both Wallqvist and Nordin suspected them. Secret negotiations
were entered into with all the anti-Russian Courts simultaneously, and
the results of these negotiations were communicated to Toll and Ruuth
at a series of Cabinet Councils held during 1788, at which they were
the only Ministers present. The apparently inextricable difficulties of
Catharine II during her Second War with Turkey gave him his oppor-
tunity. After addressing an ultimatum to the Empress, in which he
demanded the cession of Carelia and Livonia to Sweden, the restoration
of the Crimea to Turkey (a Suedo-Turkish alliance had already been
brought about by Great Britain and Prussia, and the first subsidy of
piastres had reached Stockholm via Amsterdam and Hamburg), and the
instant disbandment of the Russian forces on the Swedish frontier, he
embarked for Finland on Midsummer day, arriving at Helsingfors on
July 2, 1788.
Success seemed certain. The Empress was completely taken by
surprise. Gustavus, at the head of a fine army of 40,000 men, was only
thirty-six hours' sail from the inadequately garrisoned Russian capital.
Fortunately for St Petersburg, the Russian fleet proved to be as strong
as the Swedish, which it repulsed, after a fierce engagement, off the isle
of Hogland (July 17), while a fortnight later the operations on land
were paralysed by a sudden outbreak of mutiny in the Swedish camp at
Hussula, in which Catharine saw the hand of Providence. The officers
bluntly declared that they were weary of a war which was illegal, because
it had never received the sanction of the Estates ; and the King was
compelled by them to recross the boundary river Kymmene and transfer
his camp to Anjala, within Swedish territory. On August 11 the
rebels sent an emissary to St Petersburg from Anjala, placing themselves
formally beneath the protection of the Empress, on condition that
Russian and Swedish Finland were erected into an autonomous State.
The conspirators then proceeded to draw up a formal Act of Confedera-
tion, on the Polish model, which was subscribed, within a week, by no
fewer than 113 officers. Gustavus, in the midst of wavering friends and
open foes, had been powerless to check the progress of the mutiny. Yet
honour forbade his flying from Finland ; and to open negotiations with
the Empress would, in the circumstances, have been tantamount to an
act of political suicide. His one remaining hope was that the Danes
1788] Gustavus appeals to the Dalesmen. 779
might declare war against him. A Danish invasion would imperatively
require his presence in Sweden and therefore justify his departure from
Finland, and he was clear-sighted enough to perceive that such a con-
tingency "would open the eyes of the Swedes to the reality of theif
danger and rally the people round the throne." When, therefore, the
tidings reached him that the DaneSj in pursuance of their treaty
obligations with Russia, had actually declared war against Sweden, he
exclaimed : "We are saved!" and set out at once for Stockholm, leaving
his brother Charles, Duke of Sudermania, commander-in-chief in his
stead.
Rarely has a King been in such evil case as Gustavus III when, at
the end of August, 1788, he reappeared at Stockholm. The army was
in open mutiny. The fleet was blockaded at Sveaborg. A Russian
squadron held the Gulf of Bothnia. A combined Russo-Danish
squadron swept the Cattegat. A Danish army, under the Prince of
Hesse, had actually crossed the frontier and was advancing against
Goteborg, in rank the second, in wealth the first, city in the kingdom.
Confusion reigned in the capital, panic in the provinces. A perplexed
Senate, a hostile nobility, a stupefied population were anxiously watching
every movement of a defenceless King. His friends united in imploring
him to summon a Riksdag instantly, as the one remaining means of
salvation. But Gustavus saw much further than his counsellors. A
Riksdag at that moment would have been uncontrollable, and he had
been quick to recognise that the tide of public opinion had turned again,
and was beginning to run very strongly in his favour. If only he could
take this tide at its flood, it must inevitably carry him on to victory.
His proper course was to appeal from a cowardly, treacherous, and
disloyal army to the martial and patriotic instincts of the lower classes,
and let the robust common-sense of the nation at large decide between
him and deserters who negotiated with the enemy instead of fighting
him. He would turn, first and foremost, as he himself finely expressed
it, to " that portion of the people which has the right, by long prescrip-
tion, to be the bulwark of the realm against the Danes" — to the
peasantry of the Dales, as the rugged mining districts of Sweden were
called. Theirs was the glory of having savpd Sweden 250 years before
at the call of Gustavus Vasa ; they should now have the opportunity of
saving her a second time under another Gustavus.
The King's friends contemplated with dismay the step he proposed
to take. Even the sagacious Nordin considered the letting loose of a
wild peasantry a most hazardous experiment. But Gustavus fearlessly took
all the risks, and was rewarded with complete success. Into the romantic
and dramatic details of this hardy adventure it is impossible to enter.
Suffice it to say that Gustavus, at the head of his peasant levies, snatched
Goteborg from the hands of the Danes at the last moment, and thenj
with the diplomatic support of Great Britain and Prussia (which,
CH. XXII.
780 The Riksdag of 1789. [i788-9
themselves on the point of a rupture with Russia, were deeply interested
in the prolongation of the Russo-Swedish War), rid Sweden of the Danes
altogether. Hugh Elliot, the British Minister at Copenhagen, took the
initiative and conducted the negotiations with overwhelming energy.
On November 6, 1788, the final convention for the evacuation of Sweden
was drawn up at Uddevalla, the headquarters of the Prince of Hesse. A
fortnight later, not a single Danish soldier remained on Swedish soil.
And now, sure of his people, Gustavus no longer hesitated to convoke
the Estates. On December 8 a royal proclamation, issued from Gote-
borg, summoned an extraordinary Riksdag to meet at Stockholm on
January 26, 1789.
From the first the temper of the four Orders was unmistakable. Of
the 950 gentlemen who sat in the RiddarJms during this Riksdag, more
than 700 were soi-disant "patriots," i.e. defenders of the Anjala treason,
whereas the lower three Orders were all for the King. Even of the clergy,'
among whom the Court was weakest, the Opposition could only count
upon sixteen deputies out of fifty-two, while among the 112 burgesses
and the 178 peasants there were not half-a-dozen anti-royalists. So sure,
indeed, was the King of the burgesses and the peasants that he left them
pretty much to themselves; but for the guidance of the Estate of Clergy,
which Nordin had compared to ice which might be walked upon but
must not be driven over, he reserved his most audacious coadjutor—
Wallqvist.
Only the barest outlines of the dramatic history of this momentous
Riksdag can here be adumbrated. On February 2 the session was
opened by an eirenicon ftom the Throne. "My only enemies," concluded
the orator, " are the enemies of my country." On the following day, the
King proposed that a Committee of ways and means, for which he
demanded urgency, should be appointed to provide the subsidies neces-
sary "for the maintenance of the honour, safety and independence of
the realm " — in other words, the continuation of the War. The lower
three Estates proceeded at once to elect their committee-men ; but the
first Estate exhausted every means of obstruction to produce delay, and,
when their Marshal refused to tolerate such tactics any longer, they
insulted him so grossly that he appealed to the King for satisfaction.
Meanwhile, as the whole machinery of legislation had come to a stand-
still, Gustavus resolved to expedite matters by a coup de main. On
February 17 he summoned the four Estates in congress, and, after
bitterly reproaching the nobility for their neglect of public business and
their indecent treatment of their Marshal, he dismissed them from his
presence till they had apologised to that dignitary. The nobility
having withdrawn, cowed by his fulminating eloquence but sullenly
mutinous, Gustavus invited the lower three Orders to appoint delegates
to confer with him as to those privileges "which it was only just and
right that all citizens should enjoy equally." In other words, he boldly
1789] The Act of Union and Security. 781
bid for the support of the non-noble Estates by aboHshing the peculiar
privileges of the nobility.
The royal propositions were embodied in the famous " Act of Union
and Security," the object of which was to substitute for the existing
Constitution a more monai-chical form of government. In brief, it
invested the King with the supreme executive and legislative functions.
The Riksdag was only to meet when he chose to summon it and was
only to consider such propositions as he chose to lay before it. On the
other hand, paragraphs 2 to 4 broke down the invidious distinction
between noble and non-noble which had, so long been the standing
grievance of the Ofrdlse Estates. Henceforth, commoners were to be
eligible to all, or nearly all, the offices and dignities of the State ; some
of the vexatious exemptions of the nobility from public burdens were,
at the same time, abolished. This revolutionary Act was accepted by
the lower three Estates in another congress (February 20) ; but the first
Estate, though depressed by the arrest and imprisonment of twenty-one
of its leaders, including Fersen and Pechlin (February 21), rejected it
(March 16) as unconstitutional. Nevertheless, on April S, the Act of
Union and Security, with some shght modifications, received the royal
sanction.
The worst of the difficulties of Gustavus were now over. The lower
three Estates after much debate (the peasants were particularly obstinate)
consented to grant the King the necessary subsidies " till the following
Riksdag^'' in other words indefinitely ; but the utmost the first Estate
would do was to grant them for two years. The opposition of the
nobility had to be overcome somehow, as the consent of all four Estates
was essential to the validity of a subsidy Bill. Gustavus got his way by
a ruse as impudent as it was audacious. On April 27 he suddenly
appeared in the Riddarhus, unattended, and seating himself in the
presidential chair, "as the first nobleman in the land," solemnly declared
that, if the first Estate persisted in ; refusing to grant him the new
war-tax till the next Riksdag, he would not be responsible for the con-
sequences. To the objection that those who had the right to grant
subsidies had also the right to fix their amount and terminus, he replied
that he was not there to dispute the rights of the nobility, but simply
to desire them to acquiesce, on this unique occasion, in the decision of
the three lower Estates for the welfare of their common country. He
then formally put the question to the House, and, ignoring the greatly
preponderating "Noes" with imperturbable composure pronounced that
the " Ayes " had it, at the same time cordially thanking the Riddarhus
for a consent which they had never given, but refusing to put the
question to the vote. On the following day this stormy Riksdag was
" blown out," to the intense relief of the King's friends, who expected
every moment to hear of his assassination at the hands of some infuriated
adherent of the oligarchical system.
CH. XXII.
782 The Peace of Vardld. ' [i789-9i
The Revolution of 1789 converted Sweden from a limited ' into a
semi-despotic Government. Yet, in the circumstances, the change was
necessary, if only for a time. But for this fiercely debated act of
authority, Sweden indisputably ran the risk of becoming a mere de-
pendency of Russia. The. Confederation of Anjala was as criminal and
might easily have proved as fatal as the similar Confederation of
Targowicz was to provei to Poland three years later. The King had,
once for all, put a stop to the possible recurrence of any such treason in
the future, and Catharine was obliged to leave the Finnish rebels to
their fate and to fall back on the defensive. Two fresh campaigns in
Finland, into the details of which we are here precluded from entering,
finally convinced the Russian Empress that it would be safer hence-
forth to treat Gustavus as an ally rather than as a foe. Little more
than a month after the King's crowning victory in the second battle
of Svensksund (July 9-11, 1790), where the Russians lost 63 ships
of war and 9500 men, peace was concluded at the little Finnish village
of Varala (August 14, 1790). Only eight months earlier, Catharine had
haughtily declared that " the odious and revolting aggressiveness " of the
King of Sweden would be forgiven "only if he testified his repentance"
by agreeing to a peace confirming the Treaties of Abo and Nystad,
granting a general and unlimited amnesty to all rebels, and consenting
to a guarantee by the Riksdag (" as it would be imprudent to confide in
his good faith alone ") for the observance of peace in future. The Peace
of Varala saved Sweden from any such humiliating concessions. The
increasing difficulties of Catharine, and the shuffling conduct of Gustavus'
allies, Great Britain and Prussia, had convinced both sovereigns of the
necessity of adjusting their differences without any foreign intervention.
On October 19, 1791, Gustavus went still further, and took the bold, but
by no means imprudent, Step of concluding an eight years' defensive
alliance with the Empress, who thereupon bound herself to pay her new
ally annual subsidies amounting to 300,000 roubles.
Mutual respect and, still more, a common antagonism to revolu-
tionary France, united these two great rulers in their declining years.
Gustavus now aimed at forming a league of Princes against the Jacobins :
and every other consideration was subordinated to this end. His profound
knowledge of popular assemblies enabled him, alone among contemporal-y
sovereigns, accurately to gauge from the first the scope and bearing of
the French Revolution. "The King of France has lost his throne, perhaps
his life ! " he exclaimed when the news reached him that Louis XVI had
convoked the States General. The much belauded Necker he regarded,
from the first, as a vainglorious charlatan. When the emigration began,
Gustavus offered an asylum in his camp to the French Princes, and took
up an unmistakably hostile attitude towards the new French Govern-
ment. In the summer of 1789, he declared officially that he would never
recognise any envoy accredited by the National Assembly, and on the
1790-1] Gustavus III and the French Revolution. 783
substitution in October, 1790, of the tricolour for the historical white
flag he forbade the display in his harbours of " the symbol of rampant
demagogism in its most outrageous form." It was Gustavus who plaiined
the flight of the royal family from France, the execution of which project
he entrusted to his confidential agent Count Hans Axel af Fersen. At
the last moment he himself came to Aix-la-Chapelle, so as to be close
to the scene of action. Far from being daunted by the Varennes fiasco,
he was more than ever resolved to restore the French monarchy. His
first plan was for Monsieur to take the title of Regent, form a Ministry
of his most uncompromising supporters, and invite all the European
Powers to assist him in an armed intervention. But the imprisoned
royal family — especially the Queen — were averse both from the proposed
regency and from a foreign invasion. The more prudent of his own
friends also warned Gustavus not to build too much on the representa-
tions of the Emigres, and questioned the sincerity of the Emperor and
the ability of the French Princes.
Gustavus-' chief hope was now in his new ally, the Russian Empress.
But Catharine, although she hated the French Revolution and all its
works as energetically as Gustavus, agreed, nevertheless, with her
shrewdest counsellor, Alexander Besborodko, that absolute neutrality, as
regards France, was Russia's best policy.. She had no objection, however,
to give her dangerously restless " brother- and cousin " something to do
in the West, so that she herself might have " free elbow-room " in the
Near East, and accordingly pretended to listen favourably to his new
project of a coalition of Princes against Revolutionary France. She even
contributed. half a million roubles towards the expense of it. Gustavus
proposed that France should be invaded simultaneously, at diiferent
points, by the Austrians, the Sardinians, the Spaniards, and the Princes
of the Empire.
But the Emperor Leopold's strong dislike of the first coalition project
of Gustavus proved its death-blow. Catharine also declined to move a
step in the matter till the sentiments of all the other Powers had been
ascertained. She insisted, too, on the neutrality of Great Britain and
the cooperation of the Emperor as indispensable preliminaries. With
equal coldness she regarded a subsequent proposal of an invasion of
Normandy by 30,000 Swedish troops, while a Russo-Swedish fleet
blockaded the mouth of the Seine and cut Paris off from all communica-
tion with the sea. Besborodko considered any such isolated attack as
altogether impracticable, as no doubt it was.
The acknowledgment of the new Constitutional French Government
by the Court of Vienna (Kaunitz' memorandum of November 12, 1791)
put an end, for a time, to all "declarations," or "concerts," let alone
warlike demonstrations. Gustavus alone remained immovably firm in
his reactionary policy; but his projects became, in the circumstances,
wilder and wilder. At the end of 1791 he proposed a convention between
784 Gustavus III and the French Revolution. [1791-2
Russia, Spain, and Sweden. The allies were to guarantee jointly the
French King his full prerogatives, using force to that end if necessary ;
they were to recall their Ministers from Paris; refuse to receive the
so-called national flag into their harbours; and recognise Monsieur as
Regent till the King had been set free. When Spain, which was to find
the money for this adventure, refused to entertain it, Gustavus submitted
to the Emperor a more modest programme, originally suggested by
Marie-Antoinette. An armed Congress, under the protection of an
army consisting of Austrian, Prussian, Russian and Swedish troops,
was to be summoned to protect the territories of the minor German
Princes bordering upon France and reestablish the balance of power
in Europe. The Congress was to be held at a place sufficiently close
to the French frontier to intimidate the Jacobins, and was to take
action against them if necessary. But Leopold at once rejected the
idea of an armed Congress, and neither Prussia nor Spain would move a
step without him. Thus all the anti-revolutionary schemes of Gustavus
(to which reference is made elsewhere) foundered against the obstinate
indifference of the Great Powers.
But Gustavus' own course was now nearly run. After showing once
more his unrivalled mastery over masses of men during the brief Gefle
Riksdag (January 22 — February 24, 1792), he fell a victim to a wide-
spread aristocratic conspiracy. Shot in the back by Anckarstrom, at a
midnight masquerade at the Stockholm Opera House on March 16, 1792,
he expired on the 29th. Although he may fairly be charged with many
foibles and extravagances, Gustavus III was, indisputably, one of the
greatest sovereigns of the eighteenth century. Unfortunately, his genius
never had full scope, and his opportunity came too late.
786
CHAPTER XXIII.
ENGLISH POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY IN THE SEVENTEENTH
AND EIGHTEENTH CENTURIES.
In the troublous years 1640-60, the air was thick with political
manifestos and schemes, each of which fell dismally to earth by some
inherent defect. None went to the root of the matter as Hobbes did.
Men took refuge in one despotic form after another ; a single person, a
Parliament, a single House; even the Independents who did see that
one despotism was only replaced by another, had in their own despite to
force men to be free, They had to enforce their liberty of the subject
and liberty of tender consciences by parliamentary purgings and by the
Major-Generals' swords. Through this welter of fogs and darkness the
trenchant theory of the Leviathan cuts its ruthless way like a blast of
the north wind. It is clear-sighted where others were blind ; consistent
where they were confused ; single in aim where they were entangled in
contradictions. The mid-seventeenth century w£is a great creative time,
but creation had hardly got beyond the stage of chaos. Hobbes saw
better than anyone from what quarters of the sky light was to come.
Thus nothing is more characteristic of the Civil War than that, while
it began in constitutional questions, it soon revealed itself as a great
religious struggle. He sees that the deepest question for the State is its
relation to religion. Again, the war began with an attempt to restore
the pre-Tudor conception of sovereignty as a partnership between Crown
and Parliament, and went on to a transfer of sovereignty from Crown to
Parliament. He saw that the first step in political science was to define
sovereignty. Again, the various proposals and schemes of accommoda-
tion from the Grand Remonstrance to the Humble Petition and Advice,
were so many predestined failures because they tried to break up
sovereign power into parcels, administrative, judicial, financial, military.
He saw that it was inseparable and indivisible.. The logic of events in
seven short years had produced the army's manifesto of January 15,
1649, and so made visible the logical goal, the sovereignty of the people.
In Hobbes the sovereign, is not merely acting for the people ; he and he
alone is the people.
C. M. H. VI. OH. XXIII. 60
786 Hobhes' theory of sovereignty.
Taking all these documents as a whole, their moral is that constitu-
tional forms are neither here nor there in comparison with a proper
relation between government and the governed. This is what Hobbes
would emphasise when he says that the power of sovereignty is the
same whatever be the form of commonwealth, and prosperity comes not
from the form of government but from the obedience and concord of
the subjects.
Even' if Hobbes were judged on his doctrine of sovereignty alone our
debt to him would be immense. If he took it from Bodin, he took it
by the right of better power to use it ; never was this fundamental part
of political theory expressed so trenchantly and proved to such demon-
stration. Thie very term Sovereignty is the catchword of all the
controversies of the seventeenth ceiitury. Was prerogative " intrinsical
to sovereignty and entrusted to the king by God " ? Or was it part of
the law and within legal boundaries ? In this discussion on the Petition
of Right Wentworth had said : " Let us make what law we may, there
tnust, nay there will, be a trust left in the Crown. Sahis popuU
suprema lex,'''' But the lawyers would not see this. They had lately
developed the idea of limits on sovereignty. Thus the word absolute in
1586 had meant an autonomous ruler ; but in 1607 Cowell argues that
the King must be above Parliament or he is not absolute. For the idea
of limitations came into collision with another idea becoming more and
more clfear-cut ; if sovereignty is by Divine right, how can it be limited ?
And each holder of sovereign powei* was forced in practice to transcend
limits ; not merely Stewart Kings but Long Parliaments and Protectors.
Men had recourse to the thedry of limitations only when the sovereign
was not an expression of their own will.
There was evident need of some clear thinking, and the time was
ripe for the true theory of sovereignty and the true grounds on which it
is hot amenable to legal limitaitions; namely, that it is not so much a
personal ruler as a general will of the community. Hobbes has a real
grasp of this true theory despite the form of "he," "him," "his" in
which he speaks of the sovereign. The face is the face of a Stewart King
but the voice is the voice of a Commonwealth. Non est potestas super
terrain quae comparetur ei. It is no man but "Leviathan our mortal
God." And if he follows his age in this matter of personifying sove-
reignty, he avoids the worse error of basing sovereignty on insecure
foundations. Where others trusted to Divine right alone, by which
they meant a supposed deduction from Noah and Melchizedek, Hobbes
drew his sovereignty first and independently from the principles of
reason, and " from the principles of Nature only " ; and left the probf
" from supernatural revfelations of the will of God, the pi-ophetical
ground" to Part iii of his great work, with the dry prefatory remai'k
that of four hundred prophets only Micaiah was a true one. Whete
others reserved a coordinate or even superior share of Divine right to
Its defects. 787
another body, the Church, Hobbes will have no such dualism ; no man can
serve two masters, the civil sovereign is also the supreme pastor. God's
law has two parts : the first is obedience, the second is obedience. The
inviolable obligation of obedience ; that is the note on which he closes.
The essential points of this theory are beyond question. That there
must be in every State a sovereign power, illimitable, indivisible,
unalienable ; that the attempt to separate it, to set it up against itself,
to create a " balance of powers" or a "mixed government," is chimerical;
that denial of these essential points leads to a contradiction in terms.
Thus if the objection be made that such sovereign power is a menace,
e.g. to constitutional liberty or to religious independence, the objection
falls pointless to the ground before these inherent attributes of sove-
reignty: they are inherent, not dependent on contract, but deducible
from the thing in itself; not what suits our special party or sect, but
what needs must be, is what Hobbes offers us, and his doctrine of
sovereignty is wholly unaffected by the historicalness or unhistoricalness
of his hypothesis of a social contract. Nor is his conception of sovereign
power fairly open to the criticism that it is wholly taken up with
sovereign rights and hardly alive to sovereign duties. In fact his
" duties of the sovereign " {Lev, c. 30) constitutes a fair sketch of what
we call the functions and sphere of the State. If he thought that it
was rather the duties of the citizen which required emphasising at the
time, would not this still be true in our day ?
Not that his picture of sovereign power is wholly free from defects.
He regards sovereign power only as mature and adult, and allows it no
infancy or adolescence. Doubtless some form of judiciary existed long
before legislation as such, and the earliest and longest period was the
reign of custom. He does too often speak of a transfer of " the natural
rights of all to ever)rthing " ; and of the rights of the sovereign as
derived from this transfer; it would be truer to say rights come from
the community and grow with its growth. He is too ready also to
throw sovereign and subject into antagonism ; not the crushing of the
individual, but his full evolution and realisation, is the aim of a true
State, and it is to the development of individual judgment that we must
look for a healthy national conscience. To this false antagonism Hobbes
was led by his too ready identification of sovereignty with government ;
the State is viewed too much on its coercive side; and we feel that, when
individuals' freedom to choose their own clothes and diet is represented
as only precarious and dependent on the sovereign's silence, this does
incomplete justice to one side of human life and undervalues individual
freedom. We feel that the subjects would strike, and Hobbes has
forgotten this practical limitation on sovereignty.
But however Hobbes may have over-emphasised a true theory, it
was a very different matter when Locke's influence set a false thpory
in its place. Very convenient it was, certainly, Sovereignty limited, to
CH. XXIII. 60 — 2
788 Iviportance of Hobbes' theory.
square with the Bill of Rights ; revocable, that the nation might hold
over William and the Georges j the threat of a notice to quit; partible,
the very thing to suit the great Whig houses. But like some other
convenient fallacies, it led to more than inconvenience in the end, and
had to be corrected by more and more stress on " the omnipotence of
Parliament." The modern Parliament is not far from Hobbes' sove-
reign : according to the sayirig, it can do anything but make a woman
into a man ; indeed it can do this also, as for franchise purposes and for
property law. The recent tendency to displace Parliament itself by the
Cabinet, carries the likeness still further; for the Cabinet is almost a
person, in Hobbes' sense.
Hobbes meant his theory of sovereignty to correct a current tyranno-
phobia. Our constitutional history had seemed to make the whole
object of politics to consist in putting the brake on the state machine,
arid keeping the safety-valve open, not in providing for a good head of
steam. But we are coming to see that what we want is not less but
more central power, now that it is in the hands of the community.
Trusts, interests, tariffs, may be relied on to supply all and more than
all the desired friction and resistance. The more united and more
developed a people, the more active is its sovereign power; and the
modem sovereign power comes more and more to add the work of
kgislatioh to its older executive and judicial work. The political
development of a people may be measured by the energy of its
legislative function. Modern civilisation depends on a true conception
of sovereignty. TheSe various aphorisms from publicists are enough to
suggest the importance of Hobbes' doctrine of sovereignty.
" Temporal and spiritual are two words brought into the world to
make men see double, and mistake their lawful sovereign.... A man
cannot obey two Imasters, and a house divided against itself cannot
stand.... Seeing there are no men on earth whose bodies are spiritual,
there can be no spiritual commonwealth among men that are yet in the
flesh.... My kingdom is not of this world.... Men's actions proceed from
their opinions... if the sovereign give away the government of doctrines,
men will be frighted into rebellion with the fear of spirits."
These sentences contain in essence the whole theory of Hobbes on
that eternal problem, the relation between Church and State, and they
are enough of themselves to show his originality and audacity, and to
explain the alarm inspired by "the atheist of Malmesbury."
"A church is a company of Christian men assembled at the command
of a sovereign." But what if the sovereign forbid us to believe in
Christ.'' Well, profession with the tongue is no more than a gesture,
and a Christian has the libei'ty allowed to Naaman to bow in the house
of Rimmon.
Does Hobbes then foresee the modem severance of the State from
Its anti-sacerdotal character. 789
any one religious form, and general toleration of all forms? No:
Hobbes would have said that he had made ample provision for conscience,
when he rejected any inquisition into opinions, and only claimed to
control their external expression ; had he not said, " Faith is a gift of
God which man can neither take nor give away " ; and, " There ought
to be no power over the consciences of men save the Word itself'? It
is possible that he was the more willing to make these concessions from
a conviction that they would not prove very expensive in the end ; for
he has all the Elizabethan sense of externalities in religion. Like the
Tudor sovereign his aim is peace, and not persecution for a dogma. As
things were then, Hobbes would have made everyone attend an episcopal
state Church with a very Erastian service. But as things are now in a
modem community, Hobbes would admit the public rites of all sects
except such as preached some illegal doctrines, like Mormons ; with the
general and absolute provision that no dogma whatever was to be
appealed to against a law of the State.
Here we have the very antipodes to all sacerdotalism, whether of
Rome or Geneva. The very texts on which the champions of spiritual
power relied are wrested out of their hands and turned against them.
Was he making a reductio ad absurdum of the scriptural argument,
to force men back on the argument from reason which he claimed to
be irrefutably on his side? Or was it a politic condescension to the
universal treatment of such topics at that time ? , Never was the argu-
ment from authority handled with such subtlety, such consummate
special pleading, and such contemptuous confidence. Was he simply
retaliating in kind upon his predecessors ? or was he quite candid in his
two surprising statements, that he has only taken each text in its
plainest sense, and that he is only offering provisional interpretations
until the sword shall have settled what is to be the authority on
doctrines ? At any rate he could have said to each antagonist in turn,
"Hast thou appealed unto Scripture? To Scripture shalt thou go/'
And when they did go thither, they would find considerable surprises
awaiting them under his exegesis.
There has always been in English history an undercurrent of the
theory which the Civil War thus forced to the surface : rex est vicarius
Dei. But even Henry VIH is a pale shadow beside the spiritual
supremacy in which the Leviathan is enthroned. TTiere are only two
positions in history which rise to this height ; the position of a Caliph,
the vicegerent of Allah, with the book on his knees that contains all
law as well as all religion and all morals ; and the position of the Greek
7ro\t? where heresy was treason where the State gods and no other were
the citizens' gods, and the citizen must accept the State's standard of
virtue.
In his recoil from spiritual tyranny and sacerdotal arrogance, Hobbes
has overshot the mark. From stewards of the Divine mysteries, the
(TQO The influence of Hobbes.
clergy are reduced in his State to so many gramophones stocked with
homilies on the rights of sovereignty. They are paid by results; for
"the common people's minds are like clean paper fit to receive any
imprint from public authority." Before such ultra-Erastianism the
vicar of Bray himself would have revolted. The Leviathan would have
had to face a general "strike" of the clergy, despite the drastic measures
taken to tune "those operatories of enchantment, the Universities."
Even for this the sovereign is prepared, for has he not proved his own
right to preach, baptise, administer sacraments of himself? But of
what sort would be the men who would take Orders under such a dispen-
sation, and what would be the level of spirituality in a community
whose pastors were reduced to such machines?
Nor would the atmosphere of the house of Rimmon be less stifling
to the individual layman. Both politics and morals require a purer
atmosphere above them from which to draw, and religion that gets
reduced to law would end by being unable to secure even a legal obedience.
It would be difficult nowadays to accept Hobbes' summary treatment
of cases of conscience. The modem State is too firmly based to seem
to need such uncompromising procedure. It is a sound social instinct
which treats the conscientious objector with respect, instead of summoning
him in the name of the law to swallow his principles. Hobbes' policy is
too much like sitting on the safety-valve. The fact is that he takes too
external and materialist a view of men's actions. He looks too much to
the community, and too much at one aspect of that, the coercive and
governmental aspect. He bears no rival near the throne, and would
crush the individual so as to make more of the community. But
assuredly the conception which needs strengthening in modern England
is the conception of social duty, that conception to which Hobbes gave
so powerful if a somewhat one-sided expression.
When men were receiving orders from their consciences to refuse
taxes, to resist military service, or even to keep their hats on in law
courts, when they were receiving direct "revelations" how to vote or
against whom to march, it was high time for some clear thinking and
some trenchant speaking on these topics. Hobbes' immediate effect on
the religious thought of his time was mainly in the direction of reaction.
Instinctively all of whatever creed felt that here was the enemy. Hobbes'
doctrines were denounced as pernicious to all nations, destructive of
royal titles, an encouragement to usurpers, unhistorical, unscriptural,
immoral ; he arrogated to himself the position of a prophet or apostle,
and made the Koran a Gospel, he was the boar that would root up the
Lord's vineyard, an Epicurean, a Cromwellian, the foe of property,
justice and order, conscience and religion ; a fellow to Machiavelli, an
atheist, a garbler of texts, an enemy to chartered companies, corpora-
tions, and trade, a slanderer of lawyers; he cannot believe his own books,
he is bound by his own principles to recant all he has said ; he denies
The opposition to Hohbes. 791
the social nature of man and would dissolve all human relationships,
conjugal, parental, political ; he has cheated people into a vast opinion
of himself as the prodigy of the age ; he has said nothing new but only
devises new words ; he is the champion of evil living and has made Hell
the bigness of a quartan ague ; he has even quarrelled with the elements
of Euclid. These prelates and chancellors were plainly very angry;
Hobbes might well say, Leviathan clerum totum mihifecerat hostem. It
is noticeable that the chorus swells in the twenty years following the
Restoration. "Hobbists" were not made up only, as one reverend
critic declares, of " debauchees, fine gentlemen, and Don-friends who say
Mr H. alone hath got to fundamentals," but included a great number of
learned men from abroad, besides the poet Cowley^ Richard Bathurst,
President of Trinity College, Oxford, and Robert Blackbume, who in
1681 wrote the Auctarium, a life of Hobbes with some valuable addi-
tions. Foreign writers were more -ready to acknowledge the merits of
originality, acuteness, learning ; the only merit the native critics would
allow was a mastery of English.
He dealt a mortal blow at a method of reasoning which ever since
St Augustine's day had cramped the advance of political science, the
method of reasoning from texts. When a tbxt can be found for every-
thing, and every text can be stretched to cover any view, and when no
one for all this hail of missiles is a penny the worse, the game ceases
to be worth the candle. Sidney still relies partly on texts, but Locke
drops the method as antiquated and inconclusive. Politics has at last
shaken itself free from the medieval tradition, and every student of
politics heaves a sigh of relief at parting with Noah and Nimrod,
Melchizedek and Meroz.
Hobbes himself had laid down that the only ground besides Scripture
was reason. Hobbes is therefore placed next to Lord Herbert of Cher-
bury as one of the founders of the School of English Deists.
A stiU more important influence of Hobbes was in the direction of
Erastianism. He had made short work of the " power ecclesiastical," he
had identified bishops with elders, and reduced their olficie to teaching,
referred their appointment to the civil sovereign, and left their sustenance
to voluntary contributions. All dogmas, except that of the Divinity
of our Loird, he had declared unessential; the idea of life in another
world than this earth, and the idea of a kingdom of God in opposition
to earthly kingdoms, he had rejected. His analysis of good and evil
into appetite and aversion, seemed to sap the foundations of morality.
Above all, his caustic humour, his malicious insinuations, were still
harder to bear. His whole tone and manner provoked more resentment
than even his matter.
Charles II had applied to Hobbes the description of Ishmael, his
hand against every man and every man's hand against him.
792 The method of Hobbes.
No man ever had greater self-canfidence than he, who was wont to
say that, if he had read as much as other men, he should have known no
more; whose first literary work was a translation of Thucydides to convict
the ancient world out of its own mouth, by showing that its liberty was
anarchy and demagogism ; who set out at the age of 70 to demonstrate
the squaring of the circle against all the great mathematicians— either
all they or he himself must be mad, he said ; and at the age of 76 began
a treatise to confute Coke ; who meets the criticism that the whole
world is against him by the retort, "Though the whole world build
their houses on the sand, it could not thence be inferred that so it
ought to be."
It had been Papist influence which had got him as "the grand
atheist" dismissed from the exiled Court in 1652. But his views were
quite as distasteful to the Anglicans, and Clarendon had already told
him that his book would be punished in every country in Europe. Most
■scathing of all were his sayings on conscience, saintship and inspiration,
the shibboleths of Puritanism. He makes, it is true, a rather suspicious
concession to Independency. But Presbytery, Prelacy, Papacy are joined
in condemnation as the three successive "knots on Christian liberty."
Politicians too would find him as elusive as the theologians did.
iBioyalists. hated his absolutism and his rejection of Divine Right,
;and his justification of de Jaclo governments. Parliamentarians had
"caressed" him on his return in 1652, but found that he made a dis-
concerting distinction between innocent subjects and guilty leaders.
"Civil philosophy is no older (I say it provoked and that my enemies
may know how little they have wrought upon me) than my own book
De Cive (1642)." No one as yet, Hobbes continues, had applied to
civil philosophy the clear method of natural philosophy, the gate of
which was first opened by Galileo, following Copernicus and Harvey.
The universal law is motion. The new method will apply this law to
the body politic. It will be dieductive from a few axioms ; demon-
strative, like Euclid ; rigorously abstract. Fortunately this "synthetic"
method, deducing all politics and morals from geometrical first principles,
is not long pursued. Men, he saw, would never let politics be reduced
to mere mathematics. So after the geometry trumpet has been blown
in a few flourishes, it is laid aside for the sake of " them that have not
learned the first part of philosophy, namely geometry and physics," and
they are allowed to " attain the principles of civil philosophy by the
analytical method." This turns out to be a very old friend. It is the
method we use in everyday life, to reduce a problem to its elements, and
then see what these amount to when recompounded. All we have to do
is to analyse terms into their ultimate constituents. Thus an unjust act
is seen to mean an act against law ; and law is resolved into the com-
mand of one that hath power; and power is derived from the wills of
Its remits. 793
those that set it up, their object being peace ; and that this is so, every
man may know by simply looking into his own mind. We have thus
got back to our first principle in politics, self-preservation, and then
from this everything follows deductively by irresistible short steps as in
a proposition of Euclid. This air of irresistible deduction is immensely
assisted by Hobbes' inimitable style, its lucidity, its logical fearlessness,
its terse felicity of phrase. No one ever realised so well what Machia-
velli meant when he said, " Penetrate the actual verity of the thing itself,
and be content with no mere imagination thereof." He sees everything
in sharp outline. There is no haze, nor any perspective. The science
of state ceases to be a mystery ; it has to drop what he calls its jargon.
Politics become a matter in which any plain man can get to the bottom
of it, if he will only think clearly and use his terms consistently. No
new terminology is required. There is no need to call in the expert,
whether lawyer or divine. We have politics set free from theology and
from jurisprudence as from metaphysics. This was a great achievement.
After a course of the treatises of that time, it is like emerging out of
stale incense into the fresh air. It was the beginning of that literary
tradition which has made political discussion a native atmcisphere to
Englishmen, and to which therefore indirectly we owe the successful
working of our constitutional governments, our local institutions, the
aptitude of our race for colonisation, and even the solid, almost too
solid, qualities of our newspaper Press.
Such a mode of treatment was well suited for the pioneer stage of
a new subject. The simplification which later enquirers find to be too
simplified, is a necessary stage, the laying bare of the anatomy of the
subject. The paradoxes which dazzle the eyes that would fain take a
complete survey, had their value by startling the contemporaries out of
their dogmatic slumbers. Even manifest one-sidedness effected a hearing
for an unpopular side, and forced the orthodox champions to come out
into the open.
The method of course has its defects. Civil philosophy cannot be
modelled on natural philosophy, then in its infancy ; it can only be so,
if ever, by wide and patient induction. But Hobbes had little patience,
and no belief at all in this use of induction. In fact, here lies the first
gap which a modern eye would note in him. There is no historical
method about his line of reasoning, he is almost devoid of a historical
sense. And yet here too he started a line of thought that he could not
have foreseen. By his insistence on taking men as they are, studying
their ordinary actions and motives, analysing the terms and thoughts of
common life, he was already giving the lines for the historical method
of the next century, as he had himself borrowed it from the century
preceding. Are not the " false doctrines " which hamper sovereignty a
reminiscence of Bacon's idols which hamper knowledge ? and does not the
non-moral Prince of Machiavelli reappear in the Leviathan, none of whose
794 The idea of Covenant.
acts can be called unjust ? We may say that Hobbes founded a social
science, but not the civil philosophy he conceived, and inaugurated a
new method, but not the geometrical method he promised. Further,
that abstract man which he set up, the political man, served also as model
for another abstraction, destined to be of vast importance, the economic
man. The state of nature, translated into economic terms, became a
natural order of cut-throat competition. This " economic " man is less
of a lay figure. Real men do sometimes act from economic motives
alone ; whereas social life can never be all deduced from the one motive
of self-preservation. Economic motives again are measurable ("how
much dost thee sympathise with the widow ? ") ; whereas politics has no
such instrument of science in its hands.
To us a written constitution, popular consent, and popular consulta-
tion, are familiar ideas. But their appearance as working realities was
only made possible by the constructive energy evolved by the Civil War ;
they were products of the sword as much as of the pen. They came
also from the convergence of various influences. Greek philosophy,
Roman law, Teutonic custom, medieval readings of Scripture and
history, combined to make the idea of contract irresistibly attractive.
Feudalism was in essence and origin, contractual. By its code rebellion
was often a duty. The very relation of God to man was fitted into this
frame of contract or covenant. Jehovah had vouchsafed to make cove-
nant with Noah and Abraham ; the chosen people joined themselves in
a covenant with Jehovah. This covenant had passed on to the new
dispensation. Christians were under obligation to render dues to God
as well as to Caesar. But, again, King David had made a covenant with
the elders of Israel in Hebron before the Lord, and they anointed David
King over Israel ; it was easy to deduce that a King is unaccountable for
his acts as King. When Kings were becoming each the head of his own
Church, this accountability under a covenant was developed alongside,
especially in Scotland, where the soil was so favourable to " un-kinging."
The " band " was not less a band for being called a covenant. Scots
history is a series of biographs illustrating the contractual groups, the
revocable compact, the universal " diffidence " which is the seed-plot of
society, the actual war or continual inclination thereto, even the "disso-
lute condition of masterless man." As Puritanism was the Reformation
raised to the nth, the idea of obligations resting on a covenant with
God developed into the doctrine of " tender consciences," and with the
" Saints," into anarchy tempered only by revelations.
Of the various forms of Covenant, that of Covenant with God was
too much identified with Scots who said "Gude Lard" and lived at free
quarters ; so that the Covenant of a King with his people came to have
the greatest popular effect ; this was the formula by which the mass of
the nation salved their deposition of James II. Unfortunately, in this
Milton and liberty. 795
form the ruler's own consient seemed to be required to justify a breaking
of the compact with him ; and this consent could only be deduced from
his surrender or his flight ; hence the stress laid on Charles' surrender to
the Scots, and the clumsy fiction that James II had abdicated.
But at the same time the idea of a covenant between all individuals
gained ground with the thinkers ; beginning with Hooker, it comes into
more prominence with Milton and the Independents; or shedding its
theological wrappings, emerges as a purely philosophic theory of society
in Hobbes and in Locke.
When we come to the great name of Milton, we have to ask why his
political writings count for so little. The answer lies partly in a certain
hard aloofness there was about him, partly in his impracticability, as
when he qualifies his Republicanism by confining representation to the
pars melior et sanior populi, or when he sounds his clarion when his own
side are already flying from the field. His origin of civil society is that
which Hobbes had already given in the De Cive, but with the fall of
man as a prior cause. He argues that tyrants are lawfully put to death,
and rulers are trustees ; the people may choose Kings or not, as they
please.
His highest note is liberty; he would have no over-legislation, no
muzzling of the Press, no state-fed Church, no bondage to ceremonies ;
the two enemies of religion are force and hire... Christ's kingdom is not
of this world.. .force only produces hypocrites. . .religion means our faith
and practice depending on God alone... was not a voice heard from
Heaven on Constantine's donation saying, Hodie venerium infunditur in
ecclesiam?
In the critical months, when Lambert and then Monck held the
balance, Milton tried to make a coalition between the Army and the
Council with Republicanism and liberty of conscience as fundamentals,
and a remarkable system of decentralised local government ; he would
concede to the Hamngtonians a rotation in the governing body, but
would sift the elections to leave only the worthiest ; " for by the trial of
just battle long ago the people lost their right, and it is just that a less
number compel a greater to retain their liberty rather than all be
slaves." In trying to combine as he said, democracy with a true aristo-
cracy, he, like Cromwell and like Rousseau, would force the people to be
free. But he admits the case is hopeless, and that his pleadings for
"the good old cause are the last words of expiring liberty"; that the .
nation is in a torrent sweeping over a precipice, and that like the
prophet crying, O Earth, Earth, Earth, he is speaking only to trees and
stones. The lingering hope, " Perhaps God may raise up of these stones
some to be children of reviving liberty and lead them back from Egypt,"
was to be fulfilled, but not till a generation later.
An opponent who admires Milton's style, learning and wit, and
796 Harrington's scheme.
refers to the applause given to his works, yet dismisses their praetical
proposals as "fanatic state-whimsies of a windmill brain." No doubt
like other fanaticisms and "whimsies" they were swept into oblivion
down the torrent ; they cannot be shown to have germinated in a later
age. He was like Cassandra ; his oracles came too late ; his Tenure of
Kings, after Charles' execution ; his Defensio Secunda, when Oliver was
pledged to set up a state Church; his letter to Monck, in the weeks
when that great man was getting " as drunk as a beast " at City com-
panies' dinners ; his second edition of the Ready and Easy Way was
issued when Monck had already got Charles' letters in his pocket.
Violent, unpractical as Milton's tracts often are, they are never
without a depth of thought and a magnificence of diction that make
them not unworthy of him, and they have passages which are truly
Miltonic. His mind has such an intensity and such a reach of vision,
that he rises high out of the mere circumstances to the loftiest principles.
He is a democrat who demands of the people to submit to the wisest
and best men, to raise government beyond popular mutation, and to
elevate civic duty into religion ; and of religion he demands that it shall
purge itself of all contact with material interest and all temptation to
support itself by force. His tracts remain in some respects the most
interesting, the most heroic of the countless productions of this prolific
and heroic age. He is the best example of the stirring of men's souls to
their very depths by the great issues of the time ; the pitch of self-
sacrifice to which they rose in devotion to their ideals, the foundations
of the democratic movement in new religious conceptions.
Harrington had an influence somewhat beyond his real weight both
in his own day and a century later. Not that Englishmen are apt to
fall in love at first sight with Utopias. But the characteristic of Har-
rington's ideal kingdom is its almost prosaic pi-acticability. His object
is to drive home certain laws of politics. The first is the law of i-otation,
typified by the orange tree which bears leaves, blossom, and fruit, all
at once. In the Senate and Representatives, in the great Councils of
State, War, Trade, Religion, in all lesser offices, one-third retire yearly.
It is the circulation of the blood in the body politic and is secured by
the ballot " to which Venice owes her 1300 years' life."
The second law is that which prescribes a Commonwealth of God's
making, not the- mere work of man. In fact, England is a Common-
wealth already. Popular election, even extending to jurors and militia
officers, is to be the great remedy against " interests " such as that of the
clergy, " those declared and inveterate enemies of popular power," or the
lawyers, " armed with a private interest point-blank against the public."
The third law is the " Agrarian." This is founded on another great
discovery. Power follows the balance of property, especially of landed
property. Harrington's Agrarian means a Republic based on land,
His critics. 79 T
landed estate being the qualification for all offices, but that land divided
equally among the sons and no estate allowed above ^^2000 a year. A
territorial army, the officers of which are elected from the gentry of each
county, will be a safeguard not a menace to liberty.
But there was to be a form of public national worship, such that all
Christians could take part in it. Here was an attempt to reconcile the
old conception of a State acknowledging a uniformity in worship, with
the irresistible pressure from the growth of sects and from the force of
events making for liberty of conscience. An impracticable attempt, all
religious partisans will unite in calling it; but a bold attempt and a
generous one.
It is a peculiar point in Oceana that the Senate alone can initiate,
and the representatives alone legislate. For this, and for the further
attempt to make an absolute incommunicable division between the func-
tions of government, legislative, executive, judicial, we may blame that
kaleidoscopic time and the longing to get peace between Army, Protector
and Parliament by a mechanical device.
After much commendation of Harrington and some criticism, his
acutest reviewer, Wren, with remarkable clearheadedness observes that
the contention between Leviathan and Oceana, whether it is power or
property that is the basis of society, is immaterial, as the one comes to
the other ; that though Harrington professes enmity to Hobbes, he has
really " swallowed many of his notions," that it would be impossible to
fix an agrarian limit; that the Rota is a false principle of keeping
political wisdom in a perpetual nonage ; that an absolute libration or
balance of social forces is as chimerical as perpetual motion. To a
modern mind the most fatal blots in Harrington's scheme are his exces-
sive belief in political machinery; his weakening of the executive, and
his hopeless dissociation of the different functions of government. His
influence however from 1656 to 1660 can hardly be over-estimated. To
men storm -tossed in the sweltering turmoil of that time, he seemed to
offer close imder their lee a vision of a blessed country, a land of ancient
peace and religious tranquility. During the last three months (July 6
to October 13) of the restored Rump, Harrington's followers petitioned
Parliament to start on his scheme at once ; while nightly meetings of
the Rota Club were held with very full meetings (September, 1659, to
February, 1660), which found it "very taking doctrine," as Anthony Wood
reports. " The greatest of the Parliament men," he goes on, " hated this
rotation and balloting as being against their power"; nor could the
Rota men carry it with the new Committee of Safety, when this took up
again the old task of framing a constitution. With the advent of
Monck the Oceana model fell to earth.
The permanent contributions it left to English political theory were
in the direction ot religious toleration, and the separation of functions
of government. But Harrington's ideas had a remarka,ble renascence in
CB, XXIII.
798 The Restoration reaction.
the constitution of the United States of America, which adopted his
principles of rotation in oflice, and residential qualification, his severance
of the executive from the legislative body, his belief in machinery, his
use of indirect and secondary electoral bodies, his spirit of extravagant
optimism as to the working of popular government; "the people's
interest being to choose good governors, they may be trusted to do so."
Yet there had been withal a strong aristocratic element in Harring-
ton's republicanism ; everything depended, he thought, on the natural
aristocracy within a democracy being allowed to rule, and it was to
secure this that he had insisted so much on a universal national educa-
tion, and on complete liberty of individual religious opinions.
The Restoration period is superficially a reaction towards authority,
conventionality, materialism ; but this is rather the superficial than the
real character of the period. On a deeper view it is a long pause, to
allow of settlement and digestion, to allow a general infiltration of the
great movements. Thus it was that the literary activity under the last,
two Stewarts was not one-fourth of that amazing output of the twenty
years, 1640 to 1660. The great literary names are those of men who,
had grown up in the intenser atmosphere of the earlier time. The
energy evoked by the great events of that earlier time, and by the
searching controversies which laid bare the very foundations of politics
and religion, now passed off into scientific enquiry, into industrial,
commercial, and agricultural enterprise, into economic and financial
speculation. Political writing represents only the eddies and coming to
rest of the old currents of thought. The heart is gone out of journalism,
and the new censorship and Press Acts were like calling in the military,
when the crowd had dispersed. Even the bitter anti-Puritanism of the
first years of the reign dies out into mere cynicism and disgust as it
realises that worse even than a rule of saints can be a " fatal brand and
signature of nothing else but the impure " (Butler).
The first notes of a call to arms against militant Puritanism had
been sounded even before by the foreign writers, Saumaise and More.
Hudson j in 1647, had depicted kingship as accountable only to God, who
has made a covenant with the people that they are to obey His repre-
sentative. Sancroft, in 1652, had traced the troubles to "modern policies
taken from Machiavelj Borgia, and other choice authors " ; Heylin, to
Calvin, when he laid down that magistrates of popular election can
interpose to check a King's arbitrariness ; which " all our later scribblers
have turned into a maxim that we must procure the peace of Sion by
the fall of Babylon." Wright, in 1656, had made a violent attack upon
Presbyterian and Independent preachers; "these God Almighties of the
pulpit " who called impudence " inspirations," and ignorance " the Holy
Spirit " ; preaching was a mere knack which any barber, shoemaker and
tailor can pick up. The Chancellor in September, 1660, had said that
Anti-Puritanism. 799
religion was nowadays made the gi-ound of all animosity, hatred, malice,
and revenge, and godliness measured by morosity in manners and aflf'ec-
tation in gesture ; and a certain doctor of divinity dubbed " the Godly
party" as a congregation of Satan. Others fell foul of the Barebones
Parliament, " that sorry rebaptising conventicle of mechanical unqualified
persons"; or the cry of "tender consciences" ("We were not allowed
to have consciences at all, but only stomachs to swallow covenants and
subscriptions"). Others ridiculed the hypocrites who make long prayers
a preface to the devouring of widows' houses ; or asked. Where are now
your " Providences " ? Heylin sketched the History of Puritanism, 1536
to 164!7, especially the greed, opinionatedness, and rebellious humour of
the Scots, with a bitterness that almost amounts to literary gift. The
author of the Rebels' Plea, a criticism on Baxter, put the same views
more ably and fairly ; Who ever saw a copy of the social contract ? Do
not the writs show Parliament is called only to give advice ? How can
sovereignty be divided? The Old English Puritan as no enemy to
Mngly power is interesting as a temperate tract on the other side. As
to unjust laws, he would submit passively, saying, " Vincit qui patitur.""
" I appeal to all who witnessed their way of life."
Another moderate view is put in The League illegal, or the
Covenant examined, which admits that if one side appealed to
loyalty and conscience, the other could at least appeal to liberty and
estate.
But the rising tide soon drowned such voices of sense and justice.
Puritanism was not argued down but simply lived down. " It seemed as
if virtue were forbid by law." " The streets are become like Sodom."
"Drunkenness, sw^earing, and whoredom are now modish." ,^hese
descriptions come from the scholar Evelyn, the Quaker Fox, and a
royalist preacher respectively. Those " resolved villains," Harrison and
Okey, had in their dying speeches prophesied a resurrection of "the
good old cause," but they foresaw there was to be an inundation of
Antichrist meantime.
The revival of the alliance between hierarchy and monarchy is
celebrated by a rush of pamphlets in 1660. The dignity of kingship
asserted by G. S. still has hesitations, and is anxious to prove that
kingship will not necessarily bring episcopacy with it. But already in
1658 Heylin had gone further ; the legislative power lies with the King
alone, no part of sovereignty is invested in Parliament. And this rapidly
became the dominant tone. The sovereign authority of the people,
and ihe natural liberty of free-born fellow-creatures was " cant, the
cant of our time " (Ford). One sermon boldly said. Disobedience is a
sin, whether active or passive. Others were content to say. We can only
refuse if the act is expressly forbidden by God's law ; leaving in pleasing
uncertainty who is to be judge whether such a case has arisen. The
old tracts were reprinted exalting the kingly power all but to a level
800 The Whig ideas.
with the Deity, "Were not the King a God to man, one man would
be a wolf to another."
The royal supremacy in ecclesiastical causes has to be asserted against
the Presbyterians, says a preacher, as much as the existence of monarchy
against the Independents, or the existence of laws against the Anabap-
tists, or the existence of religion itself against Atheists. The King is
the Atlas of the moral world, says another ; he beareth not the sword
in vain, and this text becomes a pulpit commonplace against "Fifth
Monarchists, Levellers, English Mammalukes, and Scottish enthusiasts."
" The magistrate''s halter scares more than the minister's hell."
In Mackenzie's Jvs Regium (1684) a lawyer came to aid in beating
the drum ecclesiastic, and proved the absolute power of monarchy from
the law of God, the law of Nature, the law of Nations.
By 1684 Non-Resistance holds the field and thrusts contemptuously
aside " those who argue that absolute obedience was only a duty in the
earliest days of the Church, and who cover all up with Glory of God,
Purity of Religion, Liberty of Conscience, Property of the Subject and
so forth." It was certainly high time for the clergy to have a rude
awakening; and a better man for the purpose could not have been
imagined than James II.
"1680, origin of the Whig party" seems almost as fixed a point as
" 1066, Norman Conquest." But the Whigs were simply the country
party formed that day in February, 1673, when Parliament by passing the
Test Act and forcing the King to recall his Declaration of Indulgence,
made the approximation to the Dissenters which ultimately brought about
the Revolution. Whiggism has been not unjustly described as " Puritan-
ism, and water"; and its origin therefore goes far back. Thus the
issue whether monarchy is of Divine Right or is from the people and
conditioned by a pact, is clearly put between two disputants writing in
1643. In Selden's broad and reconciling mind, both aspects are found
together ; kingship is divine, and based on patriarchy ; yet a King is a
thing men make for their own sakes, granting him privileges on condition
that he guards their liberties; the moment he neglects this, the privileges,
are forfeit, and he comes within the power of the law. A Parliamentarian
but no Republican, a constitutionalist but not a pedant, a latitudinarian
without being a Hobbist, monarchical without allowing irresponsibility,
he combines already the features that make up the Whig of 1688. The
same balance appears in an obscurer author (Ware) ; while Prerogative
is a " tuber," privilege of Parliament may also mean corruption ; the
foundation of all government being the people, these may choose, change,
or regulate their government and hold their ruler to an account. Or
again, in a pamphlet of 1648, we seem already to be listening to the cool
reasonableness of Locke ; " nothing man more abhorreth than govemr-
ment without consent..,, Rillers are by God's will but are accountable
Baxter's views. 801
to man, God creating the office, man setting its limits... good or ill
government depends on administration far more than on outward
form.... The worst of government is far better than none at all.... That
the origin of government is the people, does not make democracy more
'natural' than any other form.... We must remember all checks are
only preventive of bad, not creative of good, government. For that we
must look to a moral change, till then it will be all overtumings, over-
turnings, overtumings, tiU the millennium." Another writer of 1658
remarks that tracing to the people the origin of political power, which
had now become the chief maxim in politics, was as old as Hooker ; and
he harmonises the text " The powers that be are ordained of God," with
the view that consent is both the constitutive and the conservative cause
of government, by the argument that God's ordination is conveyed to the
particular magistrate through the consent of the community. Baxter's
reconciliation of liberty with obedience, in his Holy Commonwealth, is
difficult to follow, because he tries to sit on two stools at once; the
magistrate cannot compel men to believe and yet he has to restrain
wicked beliefs, such as Popery, and such liberty as is the way to damna-
tion. He holds the Whig doctrines of a mixed sovereignty between
King, Lords, and Commons, a popular right to select the form of govern-
ment, a social contract, in which the people reserved to themselves
fundamental rights of which the legislators are the trustees, a nation's
duty to preserve itself, the hmits to Non-resistance.
But he has also the Whig scorn for "the ignorant and ungodly
rabble, the Damn-me's," and for "men fetched from the dung-cart to
make our laws, and from the alehouses and maypole to dispose of our
religion, lives, and estates " ; democracy, far from being God's will, is the
worst of all government, for twenty elaborate reasons. He even goes
further when he condemns juries (" it would often do as well to throw
dice "), and Parliaments (" as such they are neither divine nor religious,
Protestant nor just"), and a liberty which " would let in aU the sensual
gang." His system in fact is a " parity of civil magistrates and godly
ministers, and sets up a hopeless delusion ; if the magistrate orders what
is evil. We are not to obey"; as Hobbes said, "who is to judge what is.
'evil'!"
One way and another it was hardly too much to claim that by 1660
"all good people agree that the people are under God the original of
all just authority"; and the work of the last two Stewarts was to
convert Cavaliers into such " good people " ; for Harrington had shrewdly
prophesied, " let the King return, and call a Parliament of the greatest
Cavaliers, so they be men of estate, in seven years they will all turn
Commonwealth men." By this he meant Republicans, and he was not
far wrong, only that the Whigs found a way, as a preacher said in 1662,
to balance prerogative of Kings, privilege of Parliament, and liberty of
subject.
C. M. H. VJ. CH. XXIII, 51
802 Non-Resistance.
The one new idea that was contributed was the distinction between
the King as sole executive and the King as partner in the legislation, as
is expressed in Burnet's Reflections, 1687, "all men are born free, but
they compact to form a government.... The presumption is always for
liberty.... All Christians are bound to the constitution as fixed by the
laws, and our laws secure property But our laws also forbid resistance
on any pretence ; and it is a heavy imputation on our Church that we
held these opinions as long as the Court and Crown have favoured us,
yet as soon as the Court turns against us we change our principles.. .but
Non-resistance is qualified by the need of liberty ; that is, we must not
resist the King for any ill administration but only if he tries to subvert
the laws."
Expressed in another form, this was the justification of resistance as
a last resort if the King was manifestly usurping sole legislative power,
and this is how the whole Revolution came to turn on the Declaration
of Indulgence. By this, as Burnet puts it a year later, and by his
encroachment on corporations, the King is usurping the legislative, and
this makes that extreme case when the oi'dinary submission enjoined by
Scripture gives way to the duty of defence of religion and property.
As in 1640, the constitutional theory had to stretch itself when the
matter came to be the defence of religion ; religious feeling is a torrent
which creates its own new channels,
Cambridge University in 1686 set forth these propositions :
(1) Kings are from God, their power is not from the people ;
(2) they are accountable to God alone ;
(3) theirs is a fundamental hereditary right.
These may be completed by two propositions from Filmer, another
Royalist :
(4) " Kings are as absolute as Adam over the creatures " ;
(5) subjects' are bound to absolute obedience, either active or
passive, with patient suffering if we are well assured it is a case of
obeying God rather than man, and do not pretend conscience for a
cloak of stubbornness. Hobbes adds, " To obey the King who is God's
lieutenant, is the same as to obey God. . .we shall have no peace till we
have absolute obedience " ; quoted by Hobbes from the Whole Dviy of
Man, as the best statement of the Royalist position.
Locke sums up the whole of " this short systetn of politics " thus :
"princes have their power absolute and by Divine Right ever since
Adam."
We cannot, with Macaulay, dismiss as a monstrous absurdity a theory
which covered all Europe for two centuries, and was held as a passionate
conviction by the majority of able and conscientious men. The theory
was due to many converging influences. First : at the Reformation, the
civil power became rival claimant with the Pope to represent God upon
Divine Right. 803
earth ; and it had to counter the papal axioms of sovereignty of the
people, right of resistance, accoxintability of Kings, by propositions the
direct contrary. Secondly: in England, Wars of the Roses, risings of the
Commons, French and Spanish threats, papal interferences, had led to a
Tudor monarchy which Bodin could quote as a type of absolutism. Now
James I put the finishing touch with his hereditary title ostentatiously,
not based on election, and flouting two Acts of Parliament. Thirdly :
England also borrowed from France, where monarchy was asserting
itself against the Huguenot coalition of feudal, municipal, aristocratic
privilege, and against Papist use of theories of social contract and limited
monarchy. Fourthly ; the theory which James had already expressed in
his True Law of Free Monarchy throve fast in English air. Church-
men repaid James' " no bishop no King " with their Appello Caesarem, and
Convocation in 1640 endorsed Sibthorpe's and Maynwaring's preaching,
that to resist was to receive damnation. Publicists defined " absolute "
as " above Parliament." English law, already " as favourable to Kings
as any in the world," seemed to range itself on this side in cases such
as Calvin's and Bate's, Darnel's or Hampden's. Chancery was a Court
of absolute power. Bacon told James. The history of the word
" Prerogative," from 1399 to 1689, covers a great growth in ideas.
The writer identified with Divine Right is Filmer. He had before
1653 written with acuteness and breadth on usury and witchcraft, on
parliamentary claims, on the value of Aristotle's politics, on Hobbes and
Milton, and on the patriarchal or patrimonial origin of kingship. He is
very modem in his use of the Bible, not as an armoury but as a socio-
logical document ; in his application of a historical method in politics ; in
his emphasis on the naturalness of human society. What is at fault is
not his claim of absolutism for the State, but the attempt to make
monarchy the exclusive form of State ; not his derivation of political power
from a Patria Potestas, but his exclusion of other lines of argument, such
as that from Utility ; not his parallel of the State to a family, but his
slurring over the difference between a State and a family. Moreover to
argue that if government was natural it was therefore divine, was really to
push the theological basis into the background ; and opened a gap at
which it was easy for his assailants to make entry. Thus Sidney and Locke
are able first to make a very different picture of Adam and the patriarchs ;
and then triumphantly to ask, What has Adam to do with present day
government .'' and finally to claim Divine sanction for any de Jhcto
government that answers the test of expediency and UtUity. So in a
sensible answer to Filmer by Tyrell, Patriarcha rum Monarcha, it is
evident how Filmer's book was at least the occasion of a new method of
handling such topics. Tyrell sketches the practical evils that would
result from a modem interpretation of absolutism in the hands of an
English King ; he then remarks that the same powers could have belonged
to Oliver, once he had taken the Crown ; and asks. How can that be
OH. XXIII. 51 — 2
804 Filmer. — Sidney.
specially Divine which is not for the people's happiness or good ? Of
history he justly says, History has at least as much to tell of bad rulers
as of bad democracies ; of scriptural analogies, we must not press too
far the letter of such texts as " Resist not evil," " Swear not at all ^ ;
and of the whole patriarchal argument, that children's rights rest on an
even weightier sanction than parents' rights over children.
The Patriarcha appeared at a crisis, early in 1610. Its pithy
phrases seemed marvellously apt ; such as, " Parliament at first contained
no Commons, their privilege must therefore have come by growth, that
is by royal grace:... Ecclesiastics, determined to put Kings below the
Pope, made secure by putting the people above JQngs." His trumpet
gave no uncertain sound : " to deem the King bound by laws or by his
own oath, is absurd, inconsistent with sovereignty, contrary both to
law and to reason." No wonder "the pulpits owned him at once," as
Locke puts it; for he popularised the abstractions of sovereignty by
making them concrete and personal, and hitching them on to English
constitutional history. Divine Right was one way of expressing obedience,
orderliness, continuity; it made 1660 and 1689 bloodless revolutions,
and saved the throne from a bastard in 1679. Much that it asserted
remains true ; that the State is divine and above legal limitations ; that
non-resistance is a duty; that the established succession is a fundamental
law ; finally, that a true concept of sovereignty is the most essential need
in politics.
At the Revolution it was said of Algernon Sidney that "he being
dead yet speaketh." But Sidney's Discourses concerning' Government
follow seriatim the arguments of Filmer's Patriarcha, who is declared not
to have used one argument that was not false, nor cited one author
whom he did not pervert ; whose conclusions are wicked infamous brutal
absurdities, and so on. This plan leads to repetitions. Ahab and
Nero, Canute and Clovis, Mazarin and the Emperor Leopold, recur over
and over again ; and even the chronicle of monarchical scandals from
the story of Uriah to the services rendered to the State by their Graces
of Cl-v-l-d and P-ts-m-th, comes to pall at last.
But we have here a remarkable contribution to political literature.
His range of learning and observation is extraorcfinarily wide. He
throws aside masses of speculative lumber of his own day. His style
has great vigour and great variety ; he is especially a master of irony ;
" Filmer might plead his malice is against England and he hurts other
countries only by accident: so Brinvilliers meant only to poison her own
relations but had to put in the rest of the diners." " Protestantism and
liberty will both flourish under a Popish prince taught that his will is
law ; look at the fatherly care of the Valois Kings to Huguenots, Philip's
mercy to Indians and Netherlanders, the moderation of the dukes of
Saxony, the gentleness of the two Maries, etc., etc."
Sidney as precursor of Locke. 805
Above all, his views are put trenchantly ; a King who breaks the law
ceases to be King; Parliament is as old as the nation itself; Parliaments
are bound to be held annually, if not, a free people may assemble when
they please ; the people can judge, change, depose Kings. Such propo-
sitions hardly needed a Jeffreys to read constructive treason into them.
But what cost Sidney his life were his scathing words on the " vermin of
a Court " and the way titles were earned nowadays. He had been too
stiff a Republican to bow to Cromwell, and his dying speech attested his
fidelity to the " old Cause."
Much for which Locke got the sole credit had already been better
expressed by Sidney. The state of nature, the surrender of rights, the
inference that we can frame society as we will ; that changes in the
superstructure of government leave the foundations of society intact,
and that a revolt of a whole people is not rebellion; many such and
many other sentences show how much of the Lockian system Sidney
already had struck out for himself. The continuity of thought between
the two writers comes out even in small points, as the use of Bellarmin's
argument, the citation from the Aragonese constitution, the handling of
the text Redde Caesari, etc. Sometimes the argument is almost repeated
verbatim ; e.g. allegiance is such obedience as the law requires (Sidney) ;
allegiance is nothing but an obedience according to law (Locke). We
find more developed in Locke the theoretic basis of social contract (on
which there is a gap in Sidney's manuscript), the division of functions
of government, the relation of religion to politics, and the practical
rules for future regulation of the constitution. Locke also is certainly
more balanced, more reasonable, more respectable, than Sidney ; he does
not show, and he had no reason to show, the other's bitterness of tone.
In Locke Independency is softened into general toleration ; and Repub-
licanism is watered down into constitutional monarchy.
English opinion has never been persuaded to declare war on monarchy,
to give Parliament irremovability, to accentuate the collision between
laws of God and laws of man, or to set up an aristocratic republic. The
balance should be put into the hands of those who by birth and estates
having the greatest interest, are superior to bribes from a Court, " so
that the nobles should not be forced to unite with the Commons to
make head against the Crown." This opens an abyss of bottomless
Whiggery, and shows us that Sidney, like another and greater exile,
would have had to be a party by himself.
The political literature of the last two decades of the seventeenth
century aU centres about the term Passive Obedience.
The Declaration of Indulgence in 1687 had in its Scottish form
boldly claimed "that absolute power which aU subjects are to obey
without reserve," and Oxford in 1685 had professed obedience without
limitations or restrictions. How to pass gracefully in three years from
CH. XXIII,
SOB Passive Obedience,
this theory to a practical duty of armed resistance, how to effect a right-
about-face so startling, was an interesting question. Any doctrine that
could bridge this impasse ought to be regarded with gratitude. We
should not therefore too ruthlessly expose all that is glaring or even
ridiculous about the dogma of Passive Obedience, as it rang from
thousands of pulpits and was hammered out in hundreds of pamphlets
in these ten years.
Passive Obedience was a sort of political postscript or proviso to the
creed of Non-resistance.
It might seem that the Restoration victory had given Non-resist-
ance a fresh sanction. So late as 1684 Bishop Parker was able to say,
" Anyone who at any time on any pretence should offer any resistance
to the Sovereign, must renounce Christ, the four Evangelists, the
twelve Apostles, to join with Mahomet, Hildebrand, and the Kirk."
This seems raving, but even so it was a natural revulsion from the still-
remembered ravings of Fifth Monarchists. After all, it was only a too
robust way of expressing the discovery of a new sanction for Non-
resistance, the sanction of experience. This was even more convincing
than the theoretic expediency and logical necessity on which Hobbes
had relied for its sanction, or that on which Berkeley relied, namely
deduction from those laws of nature which admit no exception, or the
common lawyers' sanction, that taking arms against the King's person is
a " traitorous position." All these sanctions blended in the theory of
Non-resistance ; and it was the clergy who clothed it in the garb of a
divinely-ordered duty, and who in so doing did a good service.
Non-resistance even gained strength after the Restoration, by its
being as useful a weapon against Dissenters as against Papists; the
rabble defending the faith, like another Henry VIII, would have drawn
both sets of rebels to execution upon one and the same hurdle. " The
Jesuits are Rome's Fifth Monarchy men." "Presbytery jostles with
Papacy for universal supremacy." " They believe in that monarchy for
Rome and expect it soon." For what roused the seventeenth century
fury of anti-Popery was not papal dogmeis such as Transubstantiation,
nor papal abuses such as indulgences, nor even Jesuit morality, but the
papal claim of the deposing power and the Jesuit principle of Resistance.
Non-resistance is not an absurdity, the "fiction of a time-serving
hierarchy intent on Court favours." That its chief exponents were the
clergy was natural, seeing that the roots of the theory go down to the
deepest strata of religion ; and besides being natural, the fact was of
incalculable importance, seeing that, as a modern writer has observed,
the obligation to obedience as a religious duty could most effectively be
preached by a body of religious teachers. The question when, how, and
how far men must obey, is of all others the question for their spiritual
guides to face first That they made it a rule absolute and without
exception was also natural; had they done otherwise they would have
Its real meaning. 807
been, as the author (A. Seller) of the History of Passive Obedience
shows, false to their canons and homilies, their great divines, the Acts of
Supremacy and Uniformity, their ordination vows, and their own inter-
pretation of Scripture, That they bound up the indefeasible claim of
government to our obedience with a supposed indefeasible right of a
particular form of government, or even a particular dynasty, was un-
fortunate, but inevitable, till the events of 1689 had made a severance
practicable, and the arguments of Locke had made that severance
logical.
When the hope of civilisation lies in rehabilitating and reasserting
the State, an undue emphasis on Resistance seems to throw over the
State a shade of illegitimacy, even irreligiousness ; and if pushed a little
further, would lead us not only to the eighteenth century view of the
State as a necessary evil, but right back to the medieval view of the
State as a sort of kingdom of darkness, an anti-Church. " The private
conscience is bound to submit to the public conscience, that is law." In
the last resort the choice is between government and anarchy ; " without
a last resort, there can be no government " (Leslie). It was good that
this should be put clearly by the clergy, and not left to Hobbes to
preach ; that the obligation should be accepted not merely 06 iram but
stiU more ob conscientiam. Nothing can do more to elevate the body of
citizens than the feeling that they are, as Aristotle puts it, obeying
the reason that is in the law and not merely the force that is behind
the law.
The meaning of Passive Obedience and its connexion with Non-
resistance is commonly misunderstood. The older writers had demanded
Active Obedience ; " nothing can excuse us from this, except the law of
God or an utter impossibility," Sibthorpe had preached in his famous
sermon. But Sanderson wrote after the Restoration that even in
doubtful cases Active Obedience was our duty ; and where another duty
imperatively ordered non-action, this was stiU a sin. For it was easily
seen how a merely Passive Obedience might slide into Active Resistance.
But at any rate, if Active Obedience could not be guaranteed in every
conceivable case, the balance was to be made up by the absolute
inexorable undeviating obligation to an obedience that should at least
be passive. This was held up as "the doctrine of the Cross"; the
indispensable postulate of government; Parliament affirmed it as a
principle of the constitution in 1661, and nearly passed a law in 1665 to
impose it by oath.
If some ridiculed it as "a doctrine of the bowstring " and ridiculed
as "old Lachrymists" those who would use no weapons against their
sovereign but prayers and tears, there were many more who claimed it
for the glory of the English Church. Oxford in 1683 publicly committed
to the flames the works of Milton, Baxter, Goodwin, Owen, Johnson and
others who put forth any of the following doctrines : — That authority is
808 The practical importance of Passive Obedience.
derived from the people ; that there is a compact between a prince and
his subjects ; that the rights of tyrants are forfeited ; that self-preserva-
tion is a fundamental law ; that the New Testament allows resistance in
defence of religion; that Passive Obedience is not obligatory if the
prince's command is against the law.
Passive Obedience was a very happy discovery whereby " God's law,"
Non-resistance, might be brought into a practicable relation to actual
life. In fact, Passive Obedience is the safety-valve which alone prevented
an explosion. That theory had been " screwed up to the highest peg" ;
the pressure per square inch was dangerous. Passive Obedience not only
allowed for " conscience," but for individual conscience. Resistance had
only been allowed to corporate bodies both in Papist and in Huguenot
theory. Each was an extravagant way of providing for cases of con-
science; using a steam-hammer to crack a nut. Passive Obedience
therefore provides an outlet for individual conscience that is capable of
much more exact adjustment to the individual as well as infinitely less
menacing to the State. The Church in some form was thus the pro-
tector and guardian of the individual's rights of private conscience.
The pamphlet literature, then, from the Exclusion Bill to the Bill
of Rights may well turn on Passive Obedience. It was this doctrine
which kept the gentry and middle class from following the ignis fatuus
of Shaftesbury, and made possible the remarkable rally of the Crown in
the last years of Charles II. It was this doctrine that left to the clergy
a back-way out from that absolute Non-resistance to which James
fondly imagined them pledged; and so imagining he plunged obstinately
along his fatuous way. It was this doctrine which enabled the clergy to
refuse to publish the Declaration of Indulgence ; a doctrine " providing
for revolt " as their detractors sneered, but only for revolt in the very
last resort, when they saw that principle of submission to the State,
which had been forged as a weapon against Rome, now perverted into a
tool of Rome. Finally this doctrine made them hold out till a con-
currence of conditions had appeared which never before or since had
been combined in a revolution; till they could plead the wiU of God
manifested first in practical unanimity of the whole nation ; second in
William's right of conquest, the more indisputable because bloodless;
and third, above all, in James' " abdication " by his flight. Hence the
importance attached to what seems to us this somewhat clumsy fiction
of an abdication, and the dismay when the well-meaning fishermen of
Sheerness, all unversed in metaphysics, dragged James back again for a
while.
Even so, there was a high-minded group who could not stretch
Passive Obedience to cover a transfer of allegiance. Had the Non-jurors
not acted with scrupulous restraint, had the mass of the nation been
more logical, the schism might have overthrown the new Constitution,
and the Jacobite cause might have had a very different history.
Locke's idea of Contract. 809
The weak point in Passive Obedience is that it runs into Active
Resistance; and modern malcontents have ingenuously illustrated this
by calling themselves Passive Resisters.
As Hobbes said, they plead " Obey God rather than man ; that is,
obey their interpretation of Scripture rather than the law's interpretation
of it." " He that means his suffering to be taken for obedience, must not
only not resist but also not fly nor hide, Law is a command : how do
we obey it if we do not what it enjoins? How can a thief hanged for
breaking laws be said to be obeying them ? The only suffering that can
be called obedience is voluntary suffering, that which we do not try to
avoid.'"'
" All the compact that is or needs be between the individuals that
enter into or make up a Commonwealth is, barely agreeing to unite into
one political society." In these words Locke has got almost completely
the Contract idea in its true and profounder form; a contract of all
individuals or rather of each with all, which imposes an obligation on
each as one of a community, which tells each that he is part of a whole
and cannot divest himself of his social relations, any more than of his
other human qualities. The narrower conception of Contract as a pact
between government on one side and individual citizens on the other,
was a hereditary defect due to its descent from Roman arid feudal
lawyers. It was a very imperfect way of expressing the relation of a
people to its rulers, and led to much of that confused thinking which
makes seventeenth century political literature so indigestible, and which
is reflected in the many confused attempts to represent the Crown as one
of the three Estates, not to mention the consequent trouble required to
get Stewart monarchical theory out of the way along with Stewart
monarchs. The brains were out ; but the man would not die so long as
he could plead either indefeasible Divine right or indefeasible original
contract. But Locke put government in its proper position as a trustee
for the ends for which society exists ; now a trustee has great discre-
tionary powers and great freedom from interference, but is also held
strictly accountable, and under a properly drawn deed nothing is simpler
than the appointment of new trustees. For after all, the ultimate trust
remains in the people, in Locke's words ; and this is the sovereign
people, the irrevocable depositary of all powers.
While therefore what was valuable in the doctrine of sovereignty of
the people was retained, that on the other side which was narrow and
dangerous about the Contract theory could be got rid of; and England,
refusing Divine right to any one form of government, set out on the path
of vigorous and healthy criticism of its rulers. When the people place
government in a new form and in new hands, this is not a reversion to
an anarchical state of nature, but the wholesome exercise of an inalien-
able right and duty.
810 Government a ti'ustee.
Government is a trustee for the people. The practical working of
this maxim in English politics has been manifold and far-reaching.
First : the inalienable rights with which mankind have been endowed
by their Creator (Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776) ; the bald
citation of this declaration is suggestive enough of Locke's contribution
to American Independence.
Second: when "estates, liberties, lives are in danger, and perhaps
religion too," the limit is overpast, law ends, tyranny has begun, and re-
sistance becomes a right, nay a duty. No doubt when Walpole found that
a rational system of revenue collection was met by cries of "No slavery, no
wooden shoes," or when the presence of Presb)rterians in Parliament was
met by the cry of " The Church in danger," the obstructive capacity of
this doctrine was unduly prominent. But all the same it was a balance
to the counter-theory of the omnipotence of Parliament, which was being
developed by the coincidence of legal theory and historical facts, and
that at a time when Parliament was pretty far from possessing those
other attributes of wisdom and goodness which ought to be found along
with omnipotence. A Parliament which was to a farcical degree non-
representative, and of which it was only a slight exaggeration to say that
every man had his price ; and which was being told by lawyers that it
could do everything but make a woman into a man, certainly had to be
reminded of other writings which held that it could not tax without
consent, nor punish but by legal process, nor elect its own members. It
was impossible ever again to have the monarch standing over against
the Commonwealth as an equal contracting party. "Absolute monarchy
is inconsistent with civil society and is no form of government at all " ;
" Prerogative can be nothing but the people's permitting their rulers to
do things where the law was silent." These are very different from the
definitions current half a century earliei'.
Third : Locke's people is not evoked just to give the initial push to
the governmental machine and then retire to limbo. It is a people
which actively chooses the form of government which it thinks fit, and
every member of which is free at years of discretion to give his consent
or withhold it ; which perpetually retains a right of resistance, which
is not to be called rebellion. The next hundred years seem to be giving
a demonstration of these principles ; they provide for an instalment of
revolution every seven years.
Fourth: no one could be subjected to authority without his own
consent ; and as this consent is next to impossible ever to be had, this is
" a doctrine which makes the mighty Leviathan not outlast the day it is
bom," unless some other doctrine comes to the rescue. Hence a rule
that the majority must include the rest, is the only remedy against
instantaneous dissolution; and therefore that the act of the majority
is the act of the whole is a law both of Nature and of Reason.
Fifth : the trustee character of all governments entails important
The functions of government. 811
consequences as to the division of the functions of government into
legislative, judicial, executive. To combine these functions in the same
hands is a temptation too great for human frailty. This separation of
the functions of government constitutes one of Locke's most permanent
contributions to politics. It became an axiom with English politicians.
Montesquieu canonised it : Blackstone made it part of the education of
a gentleman. Even Hamilton dared not boldly throw it aside. In our
English world it has tended to set up friction as to the political ideal,
and suspicion as the proper attitude towards an executive. It has
obscured the common ground that conjoins the different spheres of
governmental action, and substituted an illusory theory of water-tight
compartments. It has resisted the acknowledgment of a true doctrine
of sovereignty as one and indivisible, and so delayed the advent of
centraUsation and efficiency. It has diverted attention from the real
centres of gravity in our politics, the Cabinet and the questions asked
in the House of Commons. Under the hallucination of this theory, the
eighteenth century was haimted by three great bogies : the growth of
a Cabinet system, the growth of a National Debt, the retention of a
standing army ; just the three things which guaranteed that government
should not override the national will.
It is a suggestive fact that Locke's two treatises on Government
were produced in 1689. For Locke was to serve as the Bible of the
Revolution. It would have been infinitely worse for the nation had
the choice seemed to be between reason, conscience, honour on one side,
and mere material interests on the other ; it would have made the era
of the Georges a veritable " pudding-time " indeed.
To compare Locke with Hobbes in the matter of style would be
cruel. Locke may have written " a treatise to which no other ancient
or modem is comparable in influence " (Blakey) ; Hobbes may be " the
author of a political and moral system which sears the heart " (Hallam) ;
but he is the author of a style never equalled in English for combination
of lucidity, terseness, pungency. Not that Locke always fails to reach
the high standard of the seventeenth century in force of expression. His
definitions are often pointed, suggestive, excellent ; " Passive obedience
was what Ulysses no doubt preached in Polyphemus' cave " ; " Learning
and religion shall be found out to justify all a monarch shall do to his
subjects " ; " Truth is the seed-plot of all the virtues " ; " The people
are more disposed to suffer than to right themselves by resistance";
"In most things 99-hundredths of the expense is the labour." This
common sense raised to a point at which it becomes luminous is the
light which he turns on to dispel many of the old difficulties that had
haunted men; Divine Right, prerogative, paternal power, the natural
equality of men, the coexistence of individual property and common,
the coexistence of a stable society and free political criticism. It may
812 Locke's influence.
even be said without paradox that Locke saved much of Hobbes by
removing the exaggerations which by this time had put his writings
out of circulation; for men were bound to recoil from such a chain of
reasoning, however flawless the links, when they saw arbitrary imprison-
ment and cessation of Parliaments were pooh-poohed as mere "incon-
veniences," ship-money levied by precedents of ^thelred's reign was
justified under threat of anarchy, the clergy were reduced to gramophones,
and conscience diagnosed as a sort of indigestion.
But in this comparative estimate there is another side to the shield.
Hobbes was far sounder in regard to a historical basis of the social
contract. He dismisses the question rather cavalierly, " Whether there
ever was a time when these things were generally so?" But at any
rate his whole system stands independent of historical basis. Locke
cannot help hankering after such a basis. What he contemptuously
calls " the mighty objection," where are or ever were any men in such
a state of Nature, he thus answers: first, that rulers of independent
governments are in such a state : second, that all men remain in that
state till they form a politic society. So, to the demand for instances
of a social contract in history, he refers to the beginnings of Rome
and Venice as evident matter of fact, not to mention "those who
went away from Sparta with Palantus " ; he refers also to men who
still live " in troops with no government at all in Florida, Brazil, and
many parts of America " ; and sums up that all history gives either plain
instances of foundation in contract or manifest traces of it; that in
fact, all lawful governments began in this way ; the only other origin
being force. He is even bold enough to be confident that governments
had at first a "golden age" of innocence and sincerity, when rulers
were nursing fathers and subjects less vicious, and therefore there were
no contests between rulers and people.
In many respects Locke gathered up and handed on to the next
century those parts of the intellectual revolution of the seventeenth
century which were destined to be most permanent. Thus he even
exaggerates the claim of the individual, that "freedom" which had become
almost a cant term ; each of his works is a defence of the individual's
liberty — religious liberty in the Letters on Toleration, political liberty
in the Treatises on Government, and intellectual liberty in the Essay.
He, therefore, fully shares the seventeenth century impatience of all
medieval and even of more recent authority : " we cannot see by another
man's eyes," and "masters take men oiFthe use of their own judgment."
If Hobbes said that, had he read as many books as other men, he
would have been as ignorant as they, Locke went further and said he had
not i-ead Hobbes. But this was to foster an English contempt for
the "learning" belonging to a subject, an English confidence in "the
plain man" and the light of Nature. This was so far a wholesome
Locke on Toleration. 813
reaction from the wearisome parade of authorities legal and historical,
the deadly monotony of Solon and Numa, Cicero and Ulpian, which
reaches a climax in Prynne, who pours out whole dust-bins of such
learning into his margins.
But to lay down that in our enquiry after knowledge it concerns
us not what other men have thought, was a flagrant contempt of the
historical method and a presumption that there is no such thing as
evolution in politics, the practice or the theory. The fundamental
axiom of modem political science tells us that the present is rooted in
the past ; and Burke's contention that there are no new principles to be
found in ethics or politics, is hardly further from the truth on one side
than is Locke's contention on the other.
Locke also represents a reaction from the extravagant use of the
Bible in argumentation. Puritan ScripturaUsm had clothed everything
in Bible language and referred every controversy to biblical decision,
till even contemporaries had grown weary, after some fifty years of
Jephthah and Meroz, Israel and Amalek.
The great tenet of religious toleration was put by Locke on many
grounds and expressed in many ways. Religion is a man's private
concern, his belief is part of himself, and he is the sole judge of the
means to his own salvation. Persecution only creates hypocrites, while
free opinion is the best guarantee of truth. Most ceremonies are in-
different : Christianity is simple ; it is only theologians who have encrusted
it with dogma. Sacerdotalism, ritual, orthodoxy, do not constitute
Christianity if they are divorced from charity. Our attempts to express
the truth of religion must always be imperfect and relative, and cannot
amount to certainty. Each of these propositions may be found in writers
anterior to Locke or in his contemporaries ; but it was Locke who first
combined them all and drove them home to his own generation ; and
thus it was through Locke that the eighteenth century gradually became
possessed of Cromwell's sense that things spiritual can only be brought
home by light and reason, Milton's confidence that truth wiU emerge
victorious, Harrington's idea of a national worship supplemented by
free private rites. In fact it was Locke who did most to make toleration
the practice and comprehensicHi the ideal of the most thoughtful men.
Puritan opinion, whether Presbyterian or Independent, sharply divided
religious from civil society without very clearly defining which was to
ride in front, as Hobbes puts it ; and to this division Locke had inclined
in some of his earlier writings. But in his more settled view, this division
was replaced by alliance and harmony ; Church and State can be united
if the Church be made broad enough and simple enough, and the State
accepts the Christian basis. Thus religion and morality might be re-
united, sectarianism would disappear with sacerdotalism ; the Church
would become the nation organised for goodness. A noble vision, but,
" Who is to ride in front ? "
CH. XXUI.
814 Locke arid reform.
Here however lies in outline the eighteenth century tendency to
reduce religion to " cold morahty," to emphasise the " reasonableness of
Christianity," to make faith a balance of probabilities, and creeds a
matter of individual choice.
Finally, Locke is the precursor of Bentham. To say so much is to indi-
cate a great movement which, counting to the date when John Stuart Mill
adopted Elijah's mantle, was dominant in English thought for 150 years.
In Locke's ethics, rules of conduct are merely means to the happiness of
the individual ; in his politics, forms of government were merely means
to the happiness of the governed ; and in each case, the test is experience,
how much happiness does each secure ? This test even claims a Divine
sanction ; " at the right hand of God are pleasures for evermore ; and
that which we are condemned for is, not for seeking pleasure, but for
preferring the momentary pleasures of this life to those joys which shall
have no end." " God has by an inseparable connexion joined virtue
and public happiness together ; that which is for the public welfare is
God's will." It is hardly possible to exaggerate the influence of this
conception of utility ; as Maine says, it made the good of the community
take precedence of every other object, and there is no single law reform
eflfected since 1817 which cannot be traced to it. It did more than
suggest and stimulate reforms, for it supplied a ready test of all legisla-
tion; does this law demonstrably do good ? Hitherto, the only question
asked was, does it correspond with the law of God, the law of nature,
the fundamental laws of the kingdom, or some such d, priori standard ?
But now, does it do good ? Can we prove this .'' Here we have in germ
the whole modem science and art of legislation, the apparatus of com-
missions, blue books, statistics. The energy of legislation means the
commuinity vigorously adapting its environment; it is the measure of
its civilisation.
In more than one respect Locke's Utilitarianism marks the transition
from a heroic age to one more sober but more prosaic. But there is
one respect that is very significant. Locke might be called the prophet
of Property. Man has a property in his own person, and therefore in
the work of his hands. It is his because he " hath mixed his labour
with it, and thus removed it out of the common state." To preserve his
property is man's right and privilege by the law of nature ; to ensure the
better preservation of it is the motive and origin of civil society.
Property includes lives, liberties, estates. The supreme power of a
Commonwealth cannot take a penny from a man without his consent.
Violation of this right of property is a breach of trust, and justifies the
institution of a new government. This is a profound truth ; property
is a necessary part of personality, Hobbes had denied any right of
property as against the sovereign. Locke's view expresses another and
equally necessary side of the truth.
Thus the head-lines of Locke's bequest to the eighteenth century
After Locke. 815
are indicated by the words Individualism, Reason, Utility, Toleration,
Property ; all of which words might be summed up in the first of them.
No wonder that the century witnesses in England the rise of a gospel
of self-interest which made the wealth of a nation consist in setting the
individual free ; and in France that Titanic evolution of the pent-up force
of the individual which made the French Revolution so epoch-making.
A long pause for digestion and assimilation — such is the main
character of the reigns of William III and Anne. The assimilation was
not a peaceful process; what the Revolution really did was to lay
down the lines of settlement for the next generation to work out, not
without dust and heat. The lines of force, then, along which the political
writing and action of the period arranges itself, are the following. The
first need to be satisfied is political stability. " We are all in the ship
and must sink or swim together ; that I don't like the crew, is no reason
to sink the ship I go along with every Ministry so long as they
do not break in our laws and liberties." This sounds such common
sense that we hardly realise how it had cost twenty-one years of bitter
experience of strife since 1689 to bring it home even to so clear a mind
as Defoe's. The next need was to accommodate new ideas to the old
forms. Somehow, monarchical executive, a royal prerogative, an estab-
lished Church, must learn to make room within themselves for theories
of a sovereign people, a trusteeship of government, religious toleration.
Such a task is always difiicult ; but to avoid a rupture with the past has
always been the good fortune of English political progress ; it has made
change slow — perhaps too slow — but it has made it part of an ordered
growth and saved us from the recourse to cataclysms. The next task
which this period had to accomplish was to set party spirit in its proper
place. Parties were violent because they were young ; and they had to
buy their own experience, to work out their own way to clearness and
to a modus vivendi. It needed all the party agitations of the next
twenty-five years to hammer home the philosophy which imderlay the
Revolution, to translate into practical terms the ideals put forth by
Sidney and Locke. We must look indulgently even on Seymour and
SachevereU as the alarums which kept our unphilosophic race from
turning aside too soon from those abstractions and those theorisings on
sovereignty, obedience, government, toleration, to which they had had
to give ear when seeking escape from Popery and James II.
Further, we ought to realise that only slowly in this period was the
party system allowed its proper corrective — responsibility. None of the
writers, none of the statesmen, saw the absurdity of having one party
supreme in the legislature while the other retained its predominance in
the administration. Tory majorities raved in the Commons, because
they could not get at a Whig Ministry outside. This absurdity was
due to the age being so possessed with the conviction that the three
816 Party government and Defoe.
great functions of government were to be kept as separate and inde-
pendent as possible. Such an elevation of the administration above the
party system certainly gave more opportunities to the Crown, which
could also make use of the balance and alternation between the two
parties ; and so far it was a good thing, for the Revolution had threatened
to bring too great and too sudden a diminution of the central executive
power. But the separation of functions also laid open this central power
to all party rancour and violence. Therefore, one of the most important
developments in practical politics diunng this period was the evolution
of that constitutional creation, a parliamentary Ministry. All this
provision of due scope for the party system had been ignored in Locke's
scheme, and its full importance was not realised till Burke. Yet Locke's
theory of the trustee character of government and his declaration in
favour of representative reform required to be adjusted to the new facts
involved in the formation of two great permanent parties. Instead of
a water-tight separation between legislature and executive, what was
wanted was a closer connexion between them, so that a great change in
popular feeling should be reflected in both simultaneously. This is now
done by the Cabinet at once being the executive organ and having a
party majority in Parliament. The party warfare from the Revolution
to the death of Anne was, therefore, not the mere venom and futility
that it seems, but a necessary stage towards a great resjilt.
Of Whig principles the most thorough-going exponent is Defoe.
"Parliament has often harmed the country, but vox populi saved it";
and against a tyrannous legislature, traitorous factions, persecuting highr
churchmen, he appealed to the Crown as the representative of the
people. Unite these two elements as he wished them united, and you
have the Patriot King — a conception very, much in the air at the time,
as may be seen from Burnet's epilogue to his History.
To political theory his chief contribution is his tract of 1701, The
Original Power of the Collective Body of the People of England, which
Chalmers pronounced to be equal to Locke in reasoning and superior in
style. Defoe himself makes no secret of his debt to Locke, from whom
he takes almost verbatim his four maxims : All government is to secure
the property of the people ; a government which acts ill ceases to be a
government; no representatives can claim to be infallible; the legist
lature's enactments must be tested by reason. There always remains
a supreme power; the division of functions into three streams implies
a prior fountain ; the fountain does not give up all its waters at once.
He often quotes his own line, " then power retreats to its original."
The anti-Lockians are important rather as politicians and as pam-
phleteers than as affecting political theory save in the way of friction.
The ablest of these literary Non-jurors, as Dr Johnson says, was Leslie.
When Leslie attempts serious criticism, he hits, but not very hard, some
obvious weak places ; much of his writing, however, only amounts to lively
Leslie. — Solingbroke. 817
and rather cheap banter : " if silence gives consent, none are so free as
the Grand Siguier's mutes"; "the Scripture is full of that Divine
Right which they laugh at " ; " they make God ordain government, but
in no particular form at all." He feels, however, that the tide has
turned against his party; "the Whigs' pamphlets are tenfold what
ours are in number and tenfold in virulence." There is something
hopeless, too, about his theory of Church and State, if indeed it amounts
to a coherent theory at all. There are, he argues, two separate powers
distinct per se, not merely by the subjects or cases over which the power
is exerted, for there are none which do not come both under the heavenly
and under the earthly power. Yet he also says: to call the one spiritual,
the other temporal, and then to set Church and State fighting, and to
ask who shall be the judge between them, is either malice or ignorance.
Church and State are not incorporated but are, it appears, to be regarded
as a federal union ; there can be no collision so long as each keeps its
own sphere. The fact is, the Non-jurors' cause was ruined logically by
their practical English sense and compromise.
We must not make too much of Sacheverell and the High Church
movement. "The high-bred high-fed high-fliers" rattled the drum
ecclesiastic, but it was to cover a retreat or to disguise a losing cause.
They contribute nothing to political theory beyond what they had
already contributed in the preceding generation. The time was nearly
ripe for Burke. All that was needed was someone to awaken the
complacent and hard-shelled individualism of the day from its dogmatic
slumbers. This awakener was Hume. But, short of originality in theory,
Defoe contributed to political progress in almost every other direction.
Much cant he laughed out of court; many prejudices he shamed into
silence ; on fallacies and misrepresentations his common sense came down
hke a sledge-hammer. The work he did in his numberless writings —
some of them, such as the True-born Englishman, and the Shortest Way
•with the Dissenters, permanent in their historical importance — the work
of writing single-handed the whole of the Review, even to the fictitious
correspondence, was work of the first value ; it was educating a nation
into pohtical sense and morality. It was Defoe who applied, and popu-
larised Locke, and drove home the philosopher's principles.
In the half-century between the Revolution and the fall of Walpole
political life and the conflict of parties had become, as Bolingbroke says,
a matter of meij rather than measures. And this process went on under
the first two Georges, as the Tories shed their October Club elements,
as the Pretender came to be "renovinced with one voice even by the
common people," and as Walpole's jealousy threw all able men into
the ranks of the opposition to himself.
Whatever Bolingbroke's faults, it is impossible to doubt the sincerity
of his protests against political corruption. It runs through his whole
O. H. B. VI. CH. XXIII. 62
818 The Craftsman and the Patriots.
life, his whole works, his private letters, and his private conduct. It
raises his rhetoric to the genuine ring of eloquence. It gives him true
insight and lifts him almost to a prophetic strain. He foresees a day
when the offer of a bribe will be as great an affront as the offer of a
blow. Sometimes, he is in despair in face of an evil which penetrates the
whole frame of society. " Do you think you can banish corruption and
reform the world ? You might as well try to batter down the Minister's
Norfolk palace with your head." But he goes on all the same, with
indomitable energy and an amazing variety of attack, " to trace corruption
through aU its dark lurking holes."
Bolingbroke has been charged with having no remedy to propose
beyond the downfall of his hated enemy. The charge is not quite fair ;
for he was vehement in urging penalties on electoral corruption, dis-
franchisement of rotten boroughs, exclusion of placemen from Parliament,
full liberty of the Press ; besides a total reversal of foreign policy and a
more generous colonial policy. It is true, however, that constructiveness
was not his strong point. Nor among all that brilliant literary group
on the CraftsmarCs staff, was there anyone to be named in the same day
with Walpole as a master of detail, a judge of measures, an authority
in finance. Bolingbroke did, however, contribute to the Craftsma/n a
certain unmistakable sincerity, even a touch of idealism. His aim was
to supersede existing parties by the creation of a national party. Existing
parties had become utterly unreal, more " factious " with avowed private
interests. What was needed was a new conception of patriotism, the
union of all in the service of the country.
It is quite true that the Patriots, once in office, were not very
different from the jobbers they displaced. But for all that, a new idea,
or an old idea with renewed vitality, had been definitely introduced into
the arena. Of course, if what he meant was altogether to eliminate
party and the party system from the world, no project could be more
chimerical, and Macaulay would have had a perfect right to call it a
childish scheme of using prerogative to break up parties and defy
Parliament. But we may safely say that to call in prerogative to break
up parties and defy Parliament was not his scheme.
In the first place, his definition of prerogative is precisely that which
Locke and Sidney had substituted for the older royalist definition of an
absolute prerogative overriding both law and popular will. The King
was to be the most popular man in the nation, to represent the true voice
of the people against a debased Parliament, if necessary. The absolute
power (he says) that must be somewhere in every government, need not,
and with us cannot, be lodged with the monarch alone. It is no weak*
ness for Kings to be subject to limitations ; omnipotence itself submits
to such. " I neither dress up Kings as burlesque Jupiters nor strip them
to a few tattered rags." A true King, a patriot King, in Britain may
govern with power as extended as the most absolute monarch, but he
must be a patriot, looking on his rights as a trust, and the people's rights
The patriot King. — Hume. 819
as their property. Against the spirit and strength of the nation he must
never attempt to govern so as to refuse to change his Ministers and his
measures. As he will espouse no party, much less will he proscribe any.
He will enlist no party, much less enlist himself in any. In other Con-
stitutions a Prince may have influence independently of the people's : in
ours he must acquire it by their affection. Those after me (he says) may
live to see a patriot King at the head of a united people. This may be
Utopian, and certainly is somewhat intangible. But at any rate it cannot
be identified with George Ill's government by King's friends, and his
rejection of the people's Minister in favour of one of " the vain carved
things about a Court"; any more than George III himself can be identified
with the ideal Prince educating his people out of their prejudices.
In the second place, Bolingbroke's scheme was not to break down
party government, but to break down the abuse of party government
when parties had sunk into "factions," that is, as he defines faction,
a group pursuing private interests. He appeals to a national party, to
be created; and the conception of such a national party has been a
powerful idea at crises in a nation's life. He complains that the
Hanoverian dynasty was from its first accession dipped in the party
quarrels of the time ; " the King is ours " was the victorious party's cry.
What he wanted to form was a coalition of the best elements of either
party. He grasped the central fact that there was then no real division
of principle between the two parties, and that there was a wide ground
which they had in common.
Bolingbroke's aim, the union of all in the service of the State, could
not be achieved by his means, the elimination of party spirit and party
rivalry, but by its elevation to a higher plane, by the discovery of real
and worthy principles of party division, and by the elevation of certain
fundamentals outside and above party strife. Foreign policy, naval
predominance, have been practically elevated to this position in English
politics. Similarly, the maintenance of the federation of the Empire is
passing into the same agreed and unassailable position. It seems that
civilised commimities will tend to increase the number of these, axiomatic
and sacred subjects.
With Hume's Essays on Political Questions, wis leave behind the
stilted artificialities of Bolingbroke. At one stride we have reached a
modem world. We move among ideas that are familiar to us, in a
region of expediency and common sense, set forth in a style that the
best standards of the nineteenth century cannot surpass for limpidity
and ease. The worship of the Glorious Revolution has decidedly cooled,
even when we make a liberal discount for Hume's own level-headed
personality, the Scottish atmosphere in which he wrote, and his steady
pruning of any " Whiggish shoots " in successive editions of his writings.
Let obedience be the rule, he says, and resistance the exception ; it is
CH. xxiii. 62 — 2
820 Hume's scepticism and insight.
absurd to provide for and to propagate maxims of non-obedience. A
real Revolution must be a terrible thing; we must not be misled by
ours, for 1689 was not the " dissolution of society," but a mere change
in the succession, and only in the regal part of that ; besides, it was not
the work of the ten millions but of the seven hundred who concluded
for them. This coolness of judgment in Hume tends to take the form
of a general scepticism, as when he questions current assumptions as to
national character and the effects of climate and food, or ridicules the
fashionable argument that all human actions are reducible to self-love.
In the same spirit, he has a keen eye for the absurdities which passed
for Roman history, and for the weak points in both the theories of
Original Contract and of Divine Right; "a philosophic patriot under
William or Anne would have found it hard to decide between the
Stewarts and the Hanoverians." To his mind the balance hangs pretty
even between the evils of monarchy and the evils of popular government.
The one thing he holds in horror is religious enthusiasm, which he
defines as a compound of hope, pride, presumption and a warm
imagination, together with ignorance. He points out great advances
made by modem politics, such as the balance of power, the government
by laws, not men, the order, peace, and industry of societies. But, he
notes, we have no standard book yet in political science. There will
arise such a science, he thinks; but as yet "the world is too young
to fix many general truths in politics"; "Machiavel was a great
genius ; but there is hardly any maxim in his Prince which subsequent
experience has not entirely refuted." He offers in a scattered form some
Amdamental maxims, such as that all government rests ultimately on
opinion, for mere force must be on the side of the governed ; men obey
a ruler because they believe it to be their interest and his right, and
also from the secondary motives of fear and affection ; to make property
the foundation of government, as Harrington does, is therefore a very
incomplete account; to say that forms of government are immaterial
and that administration makes all in all, is against both reasoning and
experience. The great aim of all government may be summed up as
the support of the twelve judges, or in other words, the distribution of
justice ; " even the clergy so far as this world is concerned have no other
use or object of their institution." In this last maxim we see that we
have indeed passed away from medieval views of the paternal and
religious duties of the State, and are ready for the laissez^aire view and
the reduction of the State to a policeman. In this and in other ways
Hume shows an insight that amounts to prophecy. He foresees the
predominance of the House of Commons, the transformation of Britain
into a virtual republic by the development of the delegate theory of
membership of Parliament, the disappearance of the factitious distinction
between wealth in land and wealth from trade, the rehabilitation of
kingship as a constitutional monarchy, the increase of friction in our
Summary: from Hobbes to Burke. 821
political machinery, the increase of taxation, the disappearance of slavery
in the colonies as economically unprofitable. He predicts that France
will become a great republic. Even his judgment, in 1742, that
Jacobitism.was dead, is not refuted but confirmed on any but the most
superficial reading of the '45. The many changes made in the successive
editions of his essays measure no doubt the author's own advance in
monarchical sentiment ; but also may be taken as pointing to a general
movement of public opinion away from Whig principles ; while the author
himself justly claims to trace a general decay of authority, especially
that of the clergy, and a general perception that popular government
is in danger of turning out to be mob-rule. It is not well to make too
much of errors in prevision, but it is certainly instructive to see that
even a Hume may be a false prophet; our Constitution has not de-
generated into an absolute monarchy, the standing army has not proved
" a mortal distemper," nor has the National Debt destroyed the nation.
Again, we should demur to the fixing of a near period for the dissolution
of a body politic on the analogy of a natural 'body, and not regard the
balance of power as so infallible a rule for international relations; we
should hesitate to say that priests always have been and always will be foes
to liberty ; nor does a union between democracy and religious fanaticism
seem likely to wreck society in our time. Hume himself is not exempt
from the last infirmity of the theorists ; he constructs an ideal common-
wealth of his own ; it is kindest to say nothing about it.
From the vantage-groimd of Hume's final work we look back on
150 years of political theory. A very notable progress has been made
in the rise of a historical sense. The great subject of the origin of
government is handled on much sounder lines ; it is seen to be a thing
of slow growth ; if consent is stiU justly taken as its basis, yet room is
made for other secondary formations, such as habit ; it is seen that most
actual States have originated in conquest and have never been built on
any formal or conscious consent ; it is admitted that we owe allegiance
by the mere fact of birth in this or that community, and that we are
under an obligation to the constitution under which we are bom ; we are
not to " propagate maxims of resistance," but to make obedience our rule
and not hunt out exceptions and excuses from this primary duty. The
relation of histoiy to politics is estimated much more fairly ; Rome and
Sparta, France and Spain, are relegated to their proper place as illus-
trations. A true historical method is beginning to emerge. All this is
a preparation for Burke. So too is the deep sense of the sacredness of
established order. We have now for seventy years, he says, enjoyed
settlement, with harmony between Prince and Parliament, with peace and
order almost unbroken, trade, manufactures, agriculture, arts, and sciences
all flourishing ; there has been no such period in the history of mankind.
Such a paean shows us Hume as the precursor of Burke, as on other sides
he is the precursor of Bentham, of Herbert Spencer, and of Maine.
822
CHAPTER XXIV.
THE ROMANTIC MOVEMENT IN EUROPEAN LITERATURE.
During the latter half of the eighteenth century a fresh current
swept through the literature of Europe. The spurious classicism of the
Augustan age was everywhere shaken. Everywhere the stream set
violently against the ideals of the last generation ; it set, in the main,
towards what we may loosely call Romance. New ideas thronged in
from every side; new imaginative ideals began to shape themselves.
This, if we consider the obstacles which stood in the way, is hardly less
true of France than it is of England and of Germany ; it is as true of
Italy, of the Norse countries, of the Slavonic races, as it is of France.
The term Romance, however, in this connexion must be interpreted with
extreme laxity. And it will be well to indicate at the outset the various
tendencies which it will here be taken to imply.
Thus, starting from the bare reaction against the purely intellectual
outlook of the Augustan age, we are met, sooner or later, by tendencies
so distinct, in some cases so conflicting, yet in the last resort so closely
connected, as the following: the cry of long-stifled emotion and of "return
to nature," in the most general sense which that phrase will bear ; the
utterance of individual personality ; the renewed love of external nature,
and the sense of a living bond between it and man; the reawakening of
religion ; the revival of humour ; the return towards the medieval past ;
the craving for the remote and the supernatural; the reversion to the
ideals of Greek poetry and the simplicity of Greek imagination. One
tendency, the cult of realism, must be held entirely apart. For, though
in some cases it worked hand in hand with the romantic impulse, it is
manifestly of a different origin and sooner or later it was certain to
assert itself in hostility more or less pronounced.
The germ of the whole movement, so far as it is to be brought into
connexion with Romance, is to be found in the revolt of the emotions
against the tyranny of intellect. " Reason " was the guiding star of the
Augustan poets, of Pope hardly less than Boileau ; and reason, on their
lips, was apt to mean no more than common sense, the faculty which
may be supposed to guide us in the affairs of daily Ufe. Can we wonder
Influence of Richardson. 823
that, after two generations, the world should have begun to question so
distorted a view of poetry that a strong reaction should have set in, and
that, for a time, something more than its rights should have been given
to the element of emotion ? It was in Britain that the reaction first
declared itself — timidly in the poetry of Thomson {Winter, 1726); boldly
in the novels of Richardson (1740-53) and in the resounding echo which
they awakened through a large section of English society, particularly, as
is well known, among cultivated women. It would be a shallow criticism
which should find in Pamela and Clarissa nothing more than the strain
of emotion, and ignore the deep knowledge of human character and
motive, or the dramatic genius which gives to Richardson's fictions the
force and vividness of reality. But the appeal to emotion was the first
thing to strike his contemporaries ; and in a sketch of the thought and
temper of Europe it is the first thing to be recorded.
The influence of Richardson soon made itself felt upon the Continent;
and nowhere more clearly, or more fruitfully, than in France. There,
strongly as the classical tradition was entrenched, the new leaven was at
once welcomed and appropriated by the two most original writers of the
time. Diderot in the drama, Rousseau in the novel, gave it applications
of which Richardson had never thought, a significance which lay entirely
beyond his horizon. No one can read the two dramas of Diderot, or
the discourses Sur la Poesie dramatiqtie (1757-8) with which they are
buttressed up, without feeling that a wholly new spirit is making its way
into French literature ; that, to an extent even greater than was realised
by the dramatist, this spirit was fundamentally hostile to the classical
tradition ; and that its origin is to be traced to the literature of England
and, above all, to the influence of Richardson, at that time its most
celebrated representative. The same influence may be traced a few years
earlier on the drama of Germany (Lessing's Miss Sara Sampson, 1755) and,
a little later, on that of Spain {El Delimquente hour ado by Jovellanos, 1774).
In the latter case the emotional strain, which is here raised to the top note
of intensity, may be drawn from the French rather than from the English.
In the other cases the influence of Richardson, Lillo (the author of The
London Merchant), and other British writers is direct, and it is openly
proclaimed. Among the French, in particular, it gave rise to an entirely
new type of play, something between comedy and tragedy, which came
to be known as le drame. From Diderot onwards to the Revolution, the
stream of comedies larmoyantes flowed almost unbroken. Sedaine in Le
Phihsophe sans le savoir (1765), Beaumarchais in Les deux Amis (1770),
La Harpe in Milanie (1770), Marie-Joseph Chenier in Fenelon (1793)
carried on the tradition which had been founded by the zealous admirer
of Richardson. The last two writers, indeed, definitely crossed the
border line, in no case very clearly drawn, between comSdie larmmjante
and tragMie bourgeoise.
Far more fruitful was the influence of Rousseau ; upon the novel in
CB. ZXIV.
824 Influence of Rousseau.
the first instance, then upon literature at large. Neither in form nor in
substance could La nowoelle Hildise (1761) have been written as it was
but for the influence of Richardson, or again for that of Prevost (1728-40),
whose later years were devoted to the translation of Richardson. But
an entirely new strain comes into the novel with the appearance of
Rousseau ; the lyric note, and that sense of harmony between man and
outward nature which led him to seek an appropriate setting for the
passions that he paints, to interweave the woes of his heroine with a
scene which seemed to reecho them from every rock and copse and
impressed them indelibly upon the imagination of his readers. Werther
(1774) in the literature of Germany, Foscolo's Jacopo Ortis (1800-2) in
that of Italy, take up the double strain ; and it is heard again and again
throughout the literature of the following century. Few men have done
more than Rousseau to widen the scope of the novel, or deepen its
imaginative appeal.
The lyric note, which breaks through the prose of Rousseau, had
been as much lacking to the poetry as to the prose of the Augustans;
and its absence had inevitably been yet more disastrous. After a silence
of two generations it is heard once more in the odes and dirges of CoUins
(1746); with far fuller and richer power in the early songs of Goethe
(1770-86) ; and, yet later, in the magic of Blake (1783-94) and the
ringing melodies of Bums (1786-96). There is no need, in this con-
nexion, to point to the specifically Romantic elements in each of these
poets. The mere fact that each was essentially a singer is sufficient for
our purpose. For it is the revolt of the emotions against the dominance
of intellect with which at the moment we are concerned; and the supreme
expression of the emotions is to be found in song, in that field of poetry
which, however hard it may be to define, the world instinctively recognises
as lyric. The absence of such poetry is the worst blot upon the Augustan
age ; its presence, the first and chief glory of the age that followed.
From the lyric note it is a short step to the expression of individual
personality. And, once more, the step was taken by Rousseau. The
Confessions, the Dialogues, the Reveries, aU written between 1765 and
1778, are even now the supreme examples of the type. And no writings
could more defiantly challenge the classical canons. Henceforth it could
no longer be assumed that le moi est hdissable to all whose opinion is
worth counting. And, within the next generation, the example of
Rousseau was followed, with more or less of completeness, by men of
tempers so different as Richter, Wordsworth, Alfieri, and even Goethe.
We pass to other, and yet more characteristic, aspects of the move-
ment which changed the whole spirit of European literature and thought;
to the impulse which drew men to seek return, at least in imagination,
to simpler and more primitive conditions of life ; to the renewed love of
external nature and the sense of a living bond between it and man.
And, here again, we are met by Rousseau. The former of these, the
The First and the Second Discours. 825
craving for a "return to nature," had already made itself felt in the
earlier poetry of Gray, above all in the Elegy ; under another form, it
was soon to appear in The deserted Village and The Vicar of Wakefield.
But it is in Rousseau that it takes the purest and most universal shape ;
and it is from him that it radiated through the whole literature of
Europe. The writings which give the most complete expression to this
craving are the two Discourses (1750, 1755) and J^mile (1762). They
sent an electric shock through Europe. And the eagerness with which
they were welcomed showed that Rousseau had spoken the word in
season — the word which all men had unconsciously been waiting to hear,
but which none had had the insight to conceive or the courage to utter.
The message of Rousseau has its negative and its positive side. In the
first instance, it was a cry of indignant protest against the artificialities
of an outworn civilisation ; in this aspect it led to that revolt against
convention which inspired so much of the best literature of the next three
generations. The Sturm imd Drang of Germany, much of what is most
characteristic in the work of Wordsworth, Byron and SheUey, much of
what is best in the romantic movement of France — all trace their origin
to this source. And, though he would have indignantly denied it, there
is a curious echo of it in the ideas which inspired the poetry of Blake.
The political results of these memorable writings were still more startling;
but, for the moment, they fall beyond our scope.
The positive side of Rousseau's influence is, however, yet more im-
portant. Prom the first Discours onwards it was manifest that he
appealed from the intellect to the emotions ; that he thrust aside the
rationalist ideals of Voltaire and the Encyclopedists, as one-sided and
barren ; that, in his view, reason was constituted not merely by the
logical faculties acting upon the material offered through the senses, but
also and no less by the intuitive power in virtue of which man interprets
the blinder and more mysterious promptings of his nature. This was to
attack at its very foundation the philosophy of the eighteenth century —
the philosophy which, from Locke onwards to Condillac, had been slowly
shaping itself more and more precisely. It was also to apply a standard
of human worth the very negation of that which, at the time when
Rousseau wrote, was currently accepted. The whole body of opinion
which had grown up under the artificial conditions of modem society —
indeed, of society in aU possible forms — was to be swept away. Man
was to be taken " as he came from the hands of the Creator." This was
nothing short of a revolution ; and its significance was at once perceived
both by friend and foe. D'Alembert was at first content to remonstrate
with Rousseau as an erring, but well-meaning, brother (1751), But
remonstrance was soon exchanged for anathema. Kant, on the other
hand, dated the great change in the earlier history of his mind from the
moment when he learned the lesson of the second Discours; and he
compared the moral revolution wrought by Rousseau in his " discovery
826 Reawaliening of the religious spirit.
of the deep-hidden nature of man" to the intellectual revolution in-
augurated by the discoveries of Newton {Uber das Gefiihl des Schonen
und Erhahenen, 1765). With Kant we stand at the fountain-head of
modem philosophy. And nothing could illustrate more clearly the
significance of the ideas first proclaimed by Rousseau than the supreme
value attached to them by a thinker so cautious and so profound.
The reawakening of the religious temper, so characteristic of this
period and its literature, is closely connected with the point we have just
treated and may conveniently be considered next. The religious revival,
as was to be expected, had shown itself in the general life of Europe —
nowhere more markedly than in England — before it found its way
into literature. And it is probable that Pietism in Germany and the
Evangelical movement in England did much to prepare the ground for
the reception — perhaps even for the creation — of the new spirit which
was just coming into poetry. In any case, it is impossible to overlook
the contrast between the hard, the increasingly rationalist, strain of the
earlier half of the century and the deep, at times impassioned, religion
of its close. The first writer to show the change in a very marked
degree is perhaps Rousseau ; and, in this as in other respects, he stands
in the sharpest possible opposition to Voltaire and the Encyclopedists.
Le Vicaire Savoyard, which is the lasting monument of this side of his ,
genius, was published, as part of Emile, in 1762 ; and throughout the
remainder of the century the chillier vein, represented by Pope at the
one end, by Diderot, Helvetius, and Holbach at the other, tends to
sink more and more beneath the surface, the religious temper to assert
itself more and more unmistakably. The latter appears in two widely
different shapes. Under a vague form, merging into pantheism, it is
found, to take only a few instances, in Rousseau, Goethe, and Wordsworth ;
under a distinctly Christian form, again to limit our examples, in Cowper
and Chateaubriand. A more complete reversal of the current it is
impossible to conceive. During the second third of the century an
observer might well have been forgiven for thinking that the end of
Christianity — nay, of religion itself in any form that was not either a
popular superstition or a purely intellectual formula — was in sight.
With the appearance of Rousseau the whole face of things was changed.
The religious spirit had once more found voice; it once more spoke with
conviction and therefore with authority ; and a whole world of thought
and imagination was unsealed. No mistake could be greater than to
confine the results of this to the direct and avowed expression of the
religious impulse. The indirect results, the results both upon speculative
and imaginative thought, were yet more important. The whole bearing
of man towards the world, and its appeal to his heart and reason, was
altered. A new breath of spring had passed into his being ; his sense of
mystery was quickened ; he read more deeply into his own inner life and
The "return to nature." 827
that of nature; he saw the colour and the movement which form the
outward reflexion of that life more vividly and therefore more truly.
The whole force of the romantic awakening, as weU as of the philosophical
revolution, from Kant to Hegel, which went hand in hand with it, is
closely connected with this change.
In their more specific application, in that craving for a "return to
nature" with which, in part at least, they were bound up, these ideas
may fairly be said to have inspired that which is of permanent value in
the work of Herder; that which, Faust excepted (if indeed it be an
exception), is most fruitful and characteristic in the earlier Vork of
Goethe; the early dramas and lyrics of Schiller; the writings of
Bernardin de Saint-Pierre and, to some extent, of Chateaubriand ; above
all, that part of Wordsworth's poetry which is concerned with human
life — " the haunt and the main region of his song."
In close connexion with the "return to nature" in the region of
human life and of human relations must be taken the renewed love of
outward nature which so strongly marks the poetry of this period and
distinguishes it so clearly from all that had gone before. The contrast
here is not only with the poetry of the Augustan age ; that is obvious
enough. In a less, but still a very marked, degree it is with the poetry
of all previous ages. And that in more ways than one. Not only do
natural objects fill a much larger space in the poetry of this age than
they had ever done before; but they are brought into a much closer
and more living relation with the life of man; the inner harmony between
man and nature is more keenly felt, and more truthfully suggested ; the
varying moods of nature are more lovingly studied ; the subtle play of
light and shade, of rest and changefulness, without is followed with all
the more eagerness under the instinctive faith that these things are in
part the reflexion, in part the moving cause, of joy or sorrow, of gloom
or confidence, within. And we may trace an ever deepening sense of
this bond between man and native, as the period wears on.
In Thomson, with whom the movement may be said to take its rise,
nature is, on the whole, a world apart from man, though rich in interest
for him. And Thomson was followed almost immediately by Haller in
Switzerland (1729); after an interval, by Bemis (1763) and other
descriptive poets, from Saint-Lambert (1768) to Delille (1769-1806), in
France. From Switzerland, with contributory aid from England, the
new mood of description soon spread into Germany (Kleist's Fruhling,
1749). It was in Germany, however, that the fashion received its first
decisive check ; from the hand of Lessing (1766). In England it held
its ground much longer, . From The Traveller (1764) to The Task
(1785), from The Task^\jo Wordsworth's Descriptive Sketches (1793),
the succession is almost unbroken ; though each one of these poems is
both more subtle in description, and more abundant in elements which
are not "piu:e description," than those of Thomson. Thus, while
828 The " moralising " of nature.
Thomson is commonly content to take nature in her more general
aspects, in the broad and obvious changes wrought by the seasons,
Goldsmith essays the harder task of seizing that which is distinctive of
each different country ; and, at least in the case of France and Holland,
his cunning has assuredly not failed him. A like attempt, but with
a less broad and more elusive landscape, is made by Cowper; and
the subtlety with which he renders the rich pastures and winding
reaches of the Ouse is a new thing in the poetry of Europe ; though an
anticipation of it may be found in the prose of Goethe, stiU more perhaps
in that* of Rousseau. And the tradition, with a yet deeper faculty of
minute and distinctive observation, is carried yet further in the Evening
Walk, if not in the Descriptive Sketches, of Wordsworth. Something of
the same advance may be traced in the treatment of atmosphere, and
of the magical effects of light and shade, of distinctness and haziness,
which depend upon its changes. Here, however, the great step forward
was taken much earlier ; and, in this point, the Ode to Evening (1746)
by Collins has probably never been siupassed; or, if surpassed at all,
not untU the advent of Shelley (Euganean HUls, 1818) and, a little
later, of Hugo {Les Orientales, 1828) ; though it is only just to mention
certain passages of Wordsworth {e.g. A Night Piece and the Moon above
the mists of Snowdon in the Prelude) which, if less delicate in touch, are
profoundly memorable as imaginative renderings of atmospheric effect.
More widespread, though not in itself more important, was the
growing tendency to " moralise " natm-e, to weave a bond between her
changing moods and those of man, to make her the mirror of his joys
and sorrows, of his dejection and his gladness. Under a crude form, this
tendency had from the first been latent in the descriptive poets of the
period. In Thomson, still more in his French disciples, didactic and
moralising passages are inserted at stated intervals among the landscapes
and field sports which supply the chief source of inspiration. In Blair
and Young, almost to the exclusion of natural description, they form
the staple of the whole ; and the influence of the latter, great in France,
in Germany was immeasiu:able. It was Collins and Gray who took the
first step in advance, who first sought in nature an appropriate back-
ground, or a mirror, for the moods and emotions of man. And the
Elegy, which awoke several echoes both in France and Germany, is the
most familiar record of this phase of imaginative feeling. To Gray,
however, nature is merely a background for certain human figures and
emotions; and the mood which she throws into relief is almost invariably
that of melancholy — ^the mood which, traceable in the last resort
to n Penseroso, gave to the whole poetry of that day, above all in
England, its prevailing character and discriminating effect. In Collins
we find a yet more intense expression of the same mood. But he has
more of variety and modulation, he moralises less, he holds the scales
much more evenly between man and nature. Something of the same
The return towards the medieval spirit. 829
note, but with yet more of modulation, more power to give voice to
varying passions, to make nature the echo of the most diverse moods of
man, of his joy no less than of his sorrow, was soon to be struck by
Rousseau, and after him by Goethe; at a yet later time by Bums,
Wordsworth, and Coleridge. And, with each of these writers in succession,
the moralising strain tends more and more to disappear, its place to be
more and more taken by spontaneous feeling or passion, and nature to
be accepted more and more for her own sake, for the readiness with
which she takes up the life of man, with all its fleeting moods, into
herself, or breathes her own spirit, with aU its healing influences, into his.
The former is the view presented in Coleridge's Dejection; the latter,
it need hardly be said, is the prevailing note of Wordsworth. In
Wordsworth, moreover, we catch a strain which had already made itself
heard dimly in Rousseau, and again, more clearly, in Goethe; the con-
viction that, behind the "outward shows" of natiu-e, man is able to
penetrate to her spirit and, in doing so, to rise to a purer atmosphere,
to win for himself " a foretaste, a dim earnest of the calm That nature
breathes among the hills and groves." This is the religious strain, the
pantheism, to which reference has been made above; the strain which
reaches its highest intensity in Goethe and Wordsworth and, a few years
later, in Shelley.
So far we have been concerned with the vaguer and less specific springs
of the romantic current. We pass now to those which are more intimate
and distinctive. And first, the return towards the past and, in particular,
the medieval past. Among the least pleasant characteristics of the
Augustan age was the contempt for all that was "barbarous" and
" Gothic," which was then commonly professed and almost universally
felt. In part, no doubt, this feeling rested on pure ignorance. But it
is easy to see that, given the " legislation of Parnassus," the antipathy
was inevitable ; and that knowledge, had it under such circumstances
been possible, would, in all probability, have served only to deepen
it. It was equally natural that, when the tide began to turn against
classicism, men should look to the ideas, the life, the poetry of the
middle, and even the dark, ages for inspiration. Adventure, romance,
strong and simple passion, the remote, the unfamiliar, the supernatural
— all the elements that, on the whole, were conspicuously lacking to the
Latin literature which supplied the core of the Augustan ideal, were here
found, and found in a form which could hardly fail to captivate men just
escaped from the tyranny of Boileau. The first step in this direction,
intelligibly enough, was a revival of that interest in Spenser which
indeed had never entirely died out. The Faerie Queene was full of the
ideas and the matter of chivalry ; but it was cast in a form moulded by
the richest culture of the Renaissance and by a loving study of the great
poets of antiquity. Romantic matter, clad in a form the beauty of which
830 Gray. — Ossian. — Percy's Reliques.
even the most hardened Augustan was scarcely able to deny, and which
unquestionably bore marks of the study of Homer and Virgil, of Ariosto
and Tasso — here was treasure-trove for those who were moving, not
without many misgivings, from the false classicism to the true, from both
together in the direction of Romance. The cult of Spenser, doubtless
under a hybrid form, may be traced back as far as Prior (1706); but the
first worthy memorial of it is The Schoolmistress of Shenstone (1741).
This was closely followed by Thomson's Castle of Indolence in which the
vein of mock-heroic, hitherto so often associated with the Spenserian
revival, was markedly reduced ; and with the appearance of this poem^
which has caught the melody, if not the manner, of the original more
fully than any subsequent production, the influence of Spenser may be
said to have been fairly launched upon its way. It was the lifelong task
of Thomas Warton to further it. It appears in the latest poem of
Collins, perhaps even in his earlier work ; and through Bums, possibly
through Beattie also, it was handed down, now raised to a higher power,
to the generation of Wordsworth and Byron, of Shelley and Keats.
Admiration for Spenser, however, was but the first step towards the
medieval past. And, had the movement stopped there, it would have
counted for little in England, for nothing at all upon the Continent. It
was once more Gray who made the crucial advance ; who opened the
promised land, first of national tradition, then of primitive mythology,
to the poetry of his generation. The Bard, which revealed the treasures
of Celtic legend, was published in 1757; The Descent of Odin, which did
the same service by Norse mythology, followed ten years later. Between
these dates had appeared two works which were destined to have a far
deeper and wider influence than that of Gray upon the imaginative life
of Europe ; Macpherson's Ossian (1760-3) and Percy's Reliques (1765).
Round these two collections aU in the Romantic movement that belongs
to medievalism and much, perhaps most, of that which springs from the
love of adventxire or of tragic passion, much even of that which embodies
the sense of mystery and of the supernatural, may be said to gather.
But the fortunes of the two books were curiously diiFerent. " Ossian,"
discredited on antiquarian grounds in the country of his birth, had an
unrivalled influence on the whole of Europe. Goethe, Herder, and
Schiller in Germany, Napoleon and Chateaubriand in France, Cesarotti,
Monti and Foscolo in Italy, OzerofF in Russia, aU drew largely from his
inspiration. He was translated, either wholly or in part, by Goethej
Herder, and Cesarotti; byTurgot, LetourneurandBaour-Lormian; while
in England, apart from second-rate writers, we have to wait till Byron
before his influence showed itself — and, even then, only to a very limited
extent. With the Reliques it was very different. On the Continent,
except in Germany, their hour was long ddayed; and, when it did come,
came rather through the medium of such collections as Herder's Stimmen
der Vblker in Liedern (1778-9), or such ballads as those of Burger,
Influence of Ossian and tlie Reliques. 831
Schiller, and Goethe, than by their own force or because they were widely
known and loved. Even in their own country their effect was for a long
time much smaller than might have been expected. They did, indeed,
call out an immediate response from Chatterton (1768), But, with that
exception, their influence seems to have slept for a generation. The
Ancient Mariner is the first marked and certain sign of its revival ; and
they hardly came to their own until they fired and moulded the genius
of Scott.
If we ask what it was precisely that these two collections contributed
to the Romantic movement, the answer is not far to seek. Ossian
appealed to the feeling for the wilder aspects of nature, to the craving
for the mysterious and supernatural, to the sense of " old, unhappy, far-
off things," of the tragedy which lies in the last struggles of a doomed
race ; to emotions, that is, which were already in the air, but which were
immeasurably strengthened when they found themselves repeated in echoes
that came, or seemed to come, from the remote past. The very defects
of Macpherson'syaw^fiWMi, its vague imagery and anglicised rhetoric, were
rather in its favour than against it. A literal transcript of Gaelic
originals would probably have fallen on deaf ears. What he actually
gave was sufficiently unlike the poetry of the time to provoke interest
and cvffiosity, yet sufficiently Hke it not to bar out sympathy and
admiration. And it is perhaps significant that the influence of Ossian
was greatest in translations of the translation, and, possibly, in those
Latin countries, France and Italy, where the Augustan tradition was
most flrmly rooted. The appeal of the Reliqttes was simpler and more
straightforward. The love of action and adventure, the joy of battle
and of freedom unchecked by law, the instincts of courage and loyalty —
most of aU, perhaps, the craving for strong and simple passion, for the
tragic note which had hardly been heard since the deaths of Milton and
Racine — all these things found expression in the Reliques ; and, despite
Percy's alterations and adornments, they did so in a style which was
strikingly simple, rapid, and direct. Can we wonder that, to ears jaded
by a centvu:y of Augustan reason and convention, these two collections,
alike in form and matter, should have come as an inspiration ?
Three fields in particular were opened out, directly or indirectly, by
the Reliques and Ossian the past, the distant and the supernatural.
And in each case the attraction was essentially romantic in quality. Of
the return to the past — which, just because the Romantic impulse pre- '
vailed over aU others, for ova purposes means the Middle Ages, the ages
above all others of Romance — it only remains to say that, immediately
and in the first instance, it was carried out nowhere but in Germany. In
France, if we except such forgotten writers as de Belloy and Lemierre,
it plays no considerable part imtil Chateaubriand, and no decisive one
tUl Hugo. In Italy, it enters only with Manzoni; in the Norse countries,
with Oehlenschlager ; in Russia, but under a strangely conventional
832 The Supernatufal. — Revival of humour.
form, with Ozeroif ; while in England, if such subordinate writers as
Horace Walpole and Mrs Radcliffe be excepted, there is little or no trace
of it between Chatterton and Coleridge ; nor does it reach its full im-
portance until Scott. Much the same is true of the search for distant
scenes, which may be regarded as a natural offshoot of the return towards
the past. Here again, Germany led the way; Lessing's Nathan, a some-
what doubtful instance, and the later work of Herder (1798-1802) being
perhaps the earliest examples. In English literature, apart from such
experiments as Vathek (1782-6), there is nothing in this kind imtil The
Ancient Mariner and Kuhla Khan (1797-8) ; and, in spite of Southey's
efforts, the exotic hardly became naturalised till the advent of Byron.
In France, once more, the great innovator was Chateaubriand. And
with the publication of Atala and Reni (1801-2) the quest of local
colouring and unfamiliar scenery may be reckoned to have become as
much part and parcel of the Romantic temper, as the worship of the past
had been from the beginning. The cult of the Supernatural, lastly, was
for a long time virtually confined to Germany. Burger led the way
(1774); and, with infinitely more of subtlety, he was followed by Goethe;
not only in Fa/ust, the beginnings of which must be put back at least so
far as 1774, but also in ballads which rather render the workings of
supernatural terror on the soul of man than the world of spirits in and
for itself. And the same way, at a later time, was trodden by Coleridge.
In British literature, Coleridge may almost be called the pioneer, as well
as supreme master, of the SupematuraL The theme had been handled
timidly by Collins, before the appearance of Ossian and the Religues ; it
was treated vividly^ yet with more than a touch of irony, by Bums.
The full value was first given to it by The Ancient Mariner, which
divides the interest almost equally between the terror of the Supernatural
for its own sake and the dramatic appeal of "such emotions as would
naturally accompany supernatural situations, supposing them to be real."
After this poem and Christabel (1798-1800), the reign of the Supernatural
was fairly established in England. And few were the poets of the next
generation who did not, in some form or other, avail themselves of its
magic ; none, however, with the same confidence and exulting strength
which had been shown by Coleridge. In Prance it can hardly be said to
have ever taken root; and when it did appear, as in the earlier poetry of
Lamartine, Hugo, and Vigny, did so rather under the symbolism of the
Old Testament than under the forms which passed current in Germany
and England. Nor was there any other country where it found a soil so
congenial as in these.
Among the diverse characteristics of the literature of this period —
and it is one which, except in the vaguest sense, has little or no relation
to the Romantic spirit — is the reawakening of humour. The later
Augustan age had been plentifully endowed with wit ; the very name of
The realistic strain. 833
Voltaire is sufficient proof of that. But, except in England, it hardly
gave birth to a singlie work of humour. Lesage and Marivaux, in
very different ways, present the nearest approach to it elsewhere; and
it wiU be felt at once that the latter at any rate is hardly, in our sense
of the term, to be called a humom-ist at aU. With Fielding the old
tradition, the tradition which linked humour indissolubly with sympathy,
is once more restored; and he passed on the torch to a long line of
successors, including Burns in the field of poetry and ending, so far as
our period is concerned, with Miss Austen and Scott in that of the novel.
In Germany we may trace something of the same revival ; who can deny
the humour of Lessing, or the strangely different humour of Richter ?
Of other countries, if we except Diderot's Le Neveu de Rameau — and
naturalism rather than humour for its own sake is the inspiration of
that amazing portrait — ^the same thing can hardly be said. So that,
once more, we are fain to recognise in Germany, and still more in
England, the peculiar home of this form of creative energy during the
period with which we are concerned.
From humour we not unnaturally pass to the strain of realism which
marks this period and reappears, under a far more uncompromising shape,
in the century that followed. The part it plays in shaping the thought
and method of Diderot has already been noticed; and in him, there
is little need to say, it is intimately connected with naturalism, as a
philosophical creed. In the field of imaginative work, Diderot found
a successor in Restif de la Bretonne (1776-93) ; and Restif, in his turn,
points the way to certain sides — they are not the only, nor perhaps the
most significant sides — of the genius of Balzac. The only other literature
in which realism makes itself felt during our period is that of England.
And here it is curiously different both in origin and character. It
has nothing to do with theories of philosophy; and, at least in one
instance, it is clearly bent to the purposes of the moralist. The two
chief authors, Wordsworth excepted, in whom it is to be reckoned with
are Miss Austen and Crabbe. In the former it hardly amounts to more
than a resolute determination to paint only those sides of life which
observation at first hand had made familiar, and it is guided by an
instinct for unsparing selection which goes far to destroy its initial
character. In the latter it approaches more nearly to realism, as com-
monly understood. It is a method of viewing both human life and
outward nature ; and, as in so many other cases, it goes hand in hand
with a mood of remorseless pessimism. Yet, even here, a difference
asserts itself. Crabbe, like Defoe, is essentially a moralist. His first
object was to protest against the Arcadian pastoralism of Goldsmith
and others, to shame rich and poor alike by stripping the tinsel off their
vices and weaknesses. In the earlier poems of Wordsworth a tinge of
realism is not to be denied; and, as with Crabbe, it is directed by a
moral purpose. But behind the misery, which to Crabbe had seemed the
C. II. H. VI. CH. XXIV. £3
834 The reversion to Classicism.
inexpiable curse of poverty, Wordsworth hears " the still, sad music of
humanity"; and in that music all "harsher" sounds were "chastened and
subdued." And his realism is so closely pressed into the service of what
has fitly been called the Renascence of Wonder that it has something of
the effect of romance. After the Lyrical Ballads of 1798 it virtually
fades out of his poetry altogether.
Perhaps the most curious of all the currents which go to swell the
poetic achievement of this period, and certainly the most difficult to
analyse, is the reversion to classicism which has left so deep a mark on
the three great literatures of the time. Goethe and Schiller in Germany,
Andre Chenier in France, Collins at certain angles of his pioetry and, at
a later time, Keats, Shelley, and Landor in England — all these present
different phases of the tendency in question. That in all it was a
reversion not to the Latin Classicism of the Augustans, but to Hellenism,
is sufficiently obvious. And, so far, it was not only compatible with all
that we understand by romance — that would naturally follow from the
unquestionable fact that many of these writers were essentially romantic
in temper — but actually went to swell its force. The plainest proof of
this is probably to be found in the work of Andre Chenier, the least
Romantic of the group. For, whatever may be the true truth about
that great but extremely enigmatic figure, it cannot be denied that he
was hailed as precursor by the Romantics of 1830, or that his influence
upon the early, and some even of the later, work of Hugo — an influence
which is by no means confined to matters of metrical form — was very
great. In a negative sense, then, we are entitled to say that, in all these
writers, the Hellenic strain represents a reaction, or a continued protest,
against the Latin Classicism of the preceding period. How far that
reaction had anything positively in common with the Romantic move-
ment, it is more difficult to determine. It is probable that each case
requires a separate answer. Thus, with Goethe and Schiller, there can
be no doubt that Hellenism meant a conscious and deliberate protest
against the excesses of Romanticism, as represented by the whole
literature of Sturm und Drang and, consequently, by their own earlier
productions. At the same time, it must be admitted that in the most
characteristic of their Hellenic creations, in Iphigenie and Die Braut
von Messina, the Romantic spirit in its nobler forms, in its inwardness
or in its ardent passion, is not only present but does much to inspire the
whole. The impulse of Chdnier is more purely Greek. Of all modem
poets he is perhaps the one who has come nearest to the unrefracted,
impersonal, reflexion of the object before him, which we commonly
recognise as the mark of Greek poetry and of Greek art in general.
This at once puts a barrier between him and the Romantic writers who
from Rousseau downwards, and in many cases of set purpose, fuse their
material through and through with personal emotion. Yet, here again,
it is probable that the poet, so far as outward conditions influenced him
Hellerdsm and Romance. — Speculation and politics. 835
at all, was prompted by rebellion not so much against Romanticism
as against the moralising and often conventional descriptions of the
Augustans. And there are other sides of his genius, his craving for
richness of colour and his subtle sense of life in the hidden processes of
nature, which clearly stand in close relation to the inner spirit of Romance.
With the Enghsh poets of the period no doubt of the same kind presents
itself. In none of them does there seem to be any opposition between
Hellenism and Romance. The former either enters as a controlling
force, arranging material which is manifestly supplied by the latter, or
it is itself subordinated to the latter, and does little more than yield
subjects which the Romantic impulse moulds imperiously to its own
purpose. The first statement would be true of Collins ; the second, of
Shelley and Keats. There is but one of Collins' poems in which the
Hellenic, as distinct from the Pindaric, strain makes itself felt : the Ode
to Simplicity. And, however Greek its inspiration, the whole poem is
so interwoven with the promptings and memories of romance, that it
should rather perhaps be taken as an instance of the readiness with
which Hellenism lends itself to romantic purposes than of any inherent
conflict between the one spirit and the other. The flowers, we may say,
adapting a crucial verse of the Ode, are to be "culled" by Romance,
though the hand, which "ranges their ordered hues," is that of Hellenism.
With Shelley and Keats the case is clearer still. Both are apt to select
subjects from the mythology or the legendary lore of Greece. But
neither handles such subjects in the manner or spirit of the Greek poets.
As both poets, however, fall beyond our period, we must content ourselves
with one instance : the Ode on a Grecian Urn, where the antique figtures,
Greek as they are in form and posture, speak, it must be admitted, with
a voice which comes from the inmost soul of romance.
This sketch began with the return to nature in the field of imaginative
thought. It may fitly close with the return to nature in the field of
speculation and politics. The fountain-head of the stream which sweeps
in this direction, it need hardly be said, is to be found in Rousseau; not
indeed in Le Contrat Social (1762), which is, in the main, the embodi-
ment of a very different creed; but in Emik and, still more, in the
second Discowrs (1755), which took the imagination of men captive and
effectually shut their ears to the qualifications — we may almost sav, the
antagonistic doctrine — subsequently put forward by the writer. No
writing of this, and few of any other, period can claim to have wielded a
stronger or deeper influence than these. Witness the earlier phasies of the
French Revolution, on the one hand ; the early work of Goethe and the
whole literature of Sturm und Drang, upon the other. These, however,
for different reasons fall beyond our limits. Nor is it possible to dwell
upon the Jacobin dramas of Giovanni Pindemonte in Italy (1797-1800).
It must suffice to pause for a moment on the corresponding movement
— a movement too often neglected — in England. This reached its
CH. XXIV. 53 — 2
836 Burke and his irifluence on literature.
height in the very years of the revolutionary ferment across the water.
It is to these years (1790-6) that belong the early, the distinctively
Jacobin, writings of Wordsworth, Coleridge, and Southey; the glorifica-
tion of " nature " as against " art " to be found in the novels of Godwin,
Bage and Mrs Inchbald ; and, above aU, the Political Justice of Godwin
(1793). If any one book can be said to embody the revolutionary spirit
of these wild years, the years of the Jacobin crusade and the anti- Jacobin
reaction, it is this strange medley of political, social, and philosophical
nihilism which casts a spell over minds so different as those of Wordsworth
and Shelley ; while even a writer so little given to dreams as Madame de
Stael was accused, absurdly enough, of using it as an arsenal of free-
thinking ideas. Godwin's argument is full of confusions, and he was the
last man in the world to carry uncompromising principles into action.
But, as a symptom of the extent to which the revolutionary ferment had
spread to other countries, and as the first of a long line of writings which
have urged a reconstruction of the social fabric from top to bottom, his
book is intensely significant. And the protest raised by Political Jtistice
has never fallen entirely silent. Much of it is echoed, and echoed with
a far purer note, in the earlier poetry first of Wordsworth, then of
Shelley. And, from Saint-Simon onwards, it has become almost a
commonplace of European literature and thought. The only other
writer of these troubled years whom there is need to mention is Paine ;
the author of The Rights of Man (1791-2), a fiery and, in some points,
a not altogether unmerited assault on Burke.
Burke, it need hardly be said, was the deadly enemy of the creed, so
dear to the earlier romanticists, which exalted nature above society and
found in a retimi to nature the only remedy for the ills of mankind.
Yet, behind these differences, there was common ground on which he
might have joined hands with his opponents; ground far deeper than
that on which he miet and fought them. In his conception of reason, in
his belief that the purely logical and conscious elements of man's mind
do not make the whole of it, that the instinctive, unconscious imaginative
elements must be admitted as factors — nay, that they are, and ought to
be, the determining factors of the whole — in all this he was at one with
the ideas which lay at the very root of the Romantic movement, and
which declared themselves more and more plainly as that movement
gathered strength. It was this that secured the triumph of the imagina-
tion over the intellectual elements in the poetry of this and the succeeding
age. It was this that cleared the way for the philosophical revolution
which reached its height in the theories of Hegel. And of all this
Burke, in his later and more significant writings (1790-7), is the pre-
cursor. This is true not only of his thought, but of the style in which
it found appropriate expression. In passion, in richness of colouring, in
his power of touching the deepest springs of thought and feeling, of
passing without an effort from the homeliest effects to the highest and
Conclusion. 837
most imaginative, he reaches back to the great writers of the seventeenth
century, and marks nothing short of a revolution in the history of English
prose style. And the effects of that revolution are not yet exhausted.
On the writers of his own day it might be difficult to show that Burke
exercised any considerable influence. Yet echoes of his thought, and in
a less degree of his style, make themselves dimly heard in the prose
of Coleridge and Wordsworth ; more clearly, unless appearances are
altogether deceptive, in that of Joseph de Maistre (1796-1819). And,
if the question of direct influence be waived, it is certain that the author
of Le Pape moves on the same plane as the author of the Reflections, and
has a certain kinship with him in respect of style.
Of the other literary developments of the time — of the renewal of
History by Gibbon, of the great work done by Lessing, Diderot, and
others in criticism, of the new birth of philosophy associated with Kant
and his successors — there is no room to speak. In so great a wealth of
material, it has been necessary to keep within the limits of literature, in
the narrower sense.
63—3
839
CHAPTER I.
GREAT BRITAIN UNDER GEORGE I.
(1) THE HANOVERIAN SUCCESSION.
[See also Bibliographies of Chapters II and IV in the present volume; also the
Bibliographies of Chapter XIV, Section (2) and of Chapters XV and XXI in
Vol. F.]
I. BIBLIOGRAPHIES.
Loewe, V. Bibliographie der Hannoverschen und Braunschweigischen Geschichte.
Posen. 1908.
[This exhaustive bibliography of the history of the House of Brunswick and
its dominions supersedes the necessity of any others ; references to earlier biblio-
graphies will be found in it, as well as to the catalogues of important libraries, such
as that of the late King George V of Hanover, and that of tiie Historische Vereiu
fiir Niedersachsen at Hanover.]
See also Dahlmann-Waitz, Quellenkunde der Deutschen Geschichte, 7th edn.,
edited by E. Brandenburg, Leipzig, 1906.
lu Loewe's Bibliography are also enumerated the various historical periodicals of
this part of Germany, notably the
Zeitschrift des Historischen Vereins fiir Niedersachsen, Hanover, 1860, etc.; from
1892 with the supplementary title: Zugleich Organ d. Vereins fiir Gesch. d.
Herzogthiimer Bremen und Verden, und des Landes Hadeln {In progress),
and the Archives, Repeitories and subsidiary publications of this and other Societies.
II. MANUSCRIPTS.
It is unlikely that any extant documentary evidence concerning the transactions
connected with the Hanoverian Succession, or illustrating its antecedents and the
personages who had part in bringing it about or obstructing it, remains unutilised,
though not all of it may have been reproduced at length in print. The most
important among the repositories of this ms. evidence are, of course, our own Record
Office and the British Museum. In the former. Foreign Entry Books, 49, 217, and
Germany (States), 164, may be specially noted ; in the latter, eleven folio vols, of
Hanover Correspondence, together with transcripts of the same, and a collection of
documents made by Thomas Astle, intended as an appendix to the Hanover Papers,
are preserved among the Stowe uss., the contents of which are fully described in
the Catalogue of Stowe uss., London, 1896, Vol. i, pp. 287-321. For valuable
guidance as to diplomatic personages see :
Chance, J. F. List of Diplomatic Representatives and Agents, England and North
Germany, 1689-1727. Contributed to Notes on Diplomatic Relations between
England and Germany. Ed. C. H. Firth. Oxford. 1907.
CH. I. 53 — 6
840 Great Britcdn under George I.
Next come the treasures, which for a long time seemed inexhaustible, of the Royal
Archives at Hanover ; as to which see
Bar, M. tjbersieht fiber die Bestande des K. Staatsarchivs zu Hannover. (Mit-
theilungen der K. Preuss. Archiv-verwaltung, 3.) Leipzig. 1900.
Cf. Bar, M. Geschichte des K. Staatsarchivs zu Hannover. (Mittheil. 2.)
Leipzig. 1900.
Of the £lectress Sophia's vast correspondence preserved in the Hanover Archives
a large proportion has been printed. (See the publications enumerated below, ) The
copy of the Act of Settlement brought to Hanover in 1701 is preserved there. The
original patent of the same date conferring the Garter on the Elector (afterwards
King George 1) is preserved in the Royal Public Library at Hanover, where the mss.
connected with the transactions and prominent personages of the Succession period
are relatively few in number. See
Bodemann, £. Die Handschriften der K. offeutlichen Bibliothek zu Hannover.
Hanover. 1867.
For the history of the Hanoverian Succession the us. material in the diplomatic
correspondences at Vienna (more especially Hoffmann's reports), the Hague (the
correspondence of Heinsius) and Paris (where Torc/s correspondence is of course
chiefly concerned with the other side) has been assiduously examined. Among
English sources of importance for the history of the Succession the following have
been calendered for the Historical mss. Commission :
Harley Letters and Papers, Vols, n and in, forming Vols, iv and v of the mss. of the
Duke of Portland. 1897-9.
Shrewsbury Papers, mss. of the Duke of Buccleuch. Vol. ii. Part i. 1903.
Stuart Papers, belonging to the King, Vol. i. 1902.
III. CONTEMPORARY LETTERS AND MEMOIRS.
Burnet, Gilbert, Bp. of Salisbury. History of my own times. Vols, v and vi.
Oxford. 1823.
A Memorial offered to the Princess Sophia, containing a Delineation of the
Policy of England. (From the Hanover Archives.) London. 1816.
Ernest Augustus (the younger), Duke. Briefe an Johann Franz Diedrich von Wendt
aus den Jahren 1703-2Q. Ed. by Count E. Kielmannsegg. Leipzig. 1902.
Kemble, J. M. State Papers and Correspondence, 1686-1707. London. 1867.
[Contains letters of Leibniz.]
Zur Geschichte der Succession des Hauses Hannover in England. (Contains
contemporary letters.) In Zeitschr. d. hist. Ver. fur Niedersachsen. Hanover.
1862.
Leibniz, G. Werke. Ed. O. Klopp. Series l. Hanover. 1864, etc.
Vol. V. Briefe und Berichte an den Herzog Ernst August. — Die Feststellung
der Primogenitur im Welfenhause. — Briefe und Berichte fiber d. Reise von
1678-9 bis zum Ende d. Aufenthalts in Wien.— Erster Aufenthalt in Wien.
Vol. VI. Die neunte Kurwiirde.— Personalien des Kurfursten Ernst August
von Braunsohweig-Liineburg.
Vols, vii-ix. Correspondenz mit der Prinzessin Sophie, spater Kurfurstin
von Braunschweig-Liineburg. 1680-1714.
Vol. X. Correspondenz mit Sophie Charlotte, Konigin von Preussen.
Vol. XI. Correspondenz mit Caroline geb. Prinzessin von Anspach.
Geschichtliche Aufsatze und Gedichte. Ed. G. H. Pertz. Hanover. 1847.
Marchmont Papers. — A selection from the papers of the Earls of Marchmont, in the
possessioii of Sir G. H. Rose, illustrative of events, 1686-1760. Vol. in.
London. 1831.
Bibliography. 841
Original Papers containing the Secret History of Great Britain from the Restoration
to the Accession of the House of Hanover, arranged and published by James
Macpherson. Section: Hanover Papers. Vol. ii. London. 1776.
As to these Papers, which are copies of translations, extracts, or abstracts
from a portion of the papers left by John de Robethon concerned with
English domestic politics, see J. F. Chance, Corrections to James
Macpherson's Original Papers in English Historical Review, vol. xm,
July, 1898.
Pauli, R. Aktenstucke zur Thronbesteigung des Welfenhauses in England. In
Zeitschr. des hist. Vereins fur Niedersachseu. Hanover. 1883.
Sophia, Electress. — Memoiren der Herzogin Sophie, nachmals Kurfurstin von
Hannover. Hrsgbn. von A. Kocher. (Publicationen a. d. K. Preuss. Staats-
archiven. iv.) Leipzig. 1879.
— ^ The Electress Sophia. Quarterly Review. July, 1885.
Aus den Briefwechsel Konig Friedrichs I von Preussen u. der Kurfurstin
Sophie von Hannover. (Aus den Briefwechsel Konig F. I und seiner Familie.)
Ed. by E. Berner. (QuellenundUnters.z. G. d. H. Hohenzollern.) Berlin. 1901.
Aus den Briefen der Herzogin Elisabeth Charlotte von Orleans an die Kur-
furstin Sophie von Hannover. Ed. E. Bodemann. 2 vols. Hanover. 1891.
Briefe an die Raugrafinnen und Raugrafen zu Pfalz. Ed. £. Bodemann.
Publicationen a. d. K. Preuss. Staatsarchiven. xxxvii. Leipzig. 1888.
Briefe der Konigin Sophie Charlotte von Preussen und der Kurfurstin Sophie
von Hannover an hannoversche Diplomaten. Ed. R. Doebner. (Publicationen
a. d. K. Preuss. Staatsarchiven. lxxix.) Leipzig. 1905.
Briefe des Konigs Friedrich 1 von Preussen und seines Sohnes des Kronprinzen
Friedrich Wilhelm I an die Kurfurstin Sophie von Hanover. Ed. E. Bodemann.
In Zeitschr. des hist. Vereins fur Niedersachsen, 1899. Hanover.
IVIemoirs of Mary, Queen of England (1689-93), together with her letters
and those of Kings James II and William III to the Electress Sophia of Hanover.
Edited by R. Doebner. Leipzig. 1886.
Toland, John. Account of the Courts of Prussia and Hanover. Loudon. 1 705.
German transl. Frankfort. 1706.
Wentworth Papers, the. Selected from the Correspondence of the Earl of Strafford.
Edited by J. J. Cartwright. London. 1883.
IV. LATER WORKS.
A. Works referring to the Hanoverian Succession.
Bodemann, E. Herzogin Sophie von Hannover. In Hist. Taschenbuch. Leipzig.
1887.
Chance, J. F. John de Robethon and the Robethon Papers. In English His-
torical Review. Vol. xiii, January. 1898. London.
Droysen, J. G. Geschichte der preussischen Politik. Part iv. Sections 1 and 2
(Frederick I and Frederick William I). Leipzig. 1867-9.
Erdmannsdorffer, B. Deutsche Geschichte vom westfalischen Frieden bis zum
Regierungsantritt Friedrichs des Grossen. Vol. ii. Berlin. 1893.
Favre, C. B. La diplomatic de Leibniz. Ndgociations et memoires pour la succession
d'Angleterre. In Revue d'histoire diplomatique, 1905, 1906, 1907. Paris.
Fester, R. Kurfurstin Sophie von Hannover. Hamburg. 1893.
Fischer, Kuno. Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz. (Chapters viii and ix.) 4th edn.
Heidelberg. 1902.
Foxcroft, H. C. A Life of Bishop Burnet, ii. England. 1674-1715. With an
Introduction by C. H. Firth. Cambridge. 1907.
842 Great Britain under George I.
Guhraner, Gottfried Wilhelm Freiherr von Leibnitz. 2 vols. Breslau. 1846.
Hallam,H. The Constitutional History of England. Vol. in. 7th edn. London. 1854.
Halliday, A. A General History of the House of Guelph. With an appendix of
authentic and original documents. London. 1821.
Havemann, W. Geschichte der Lande Braunschweig und Liineburg. 3 vols.
Gottingen. 1863-7.
Heinemann, O. von. Geschichte von Braunschweig und Hannover. Vol. iii.
Gotha. 1892.
Klopp, O. Der Fall des Hauses Stuart und die Succession d. Hauses Hannover in
Grossbritannien und Irland. 14 vols. Vienna. 1876-88.
Meinardus, O. Die Succession d. Hauses Hannover in England und Leibniz.
Ein Beitrag zur Kritik des Dr Onno Klopp. Oldenburg. 1878.
Kocher, A. Andreas Gottlieb Graf von Bernstorff (1649-1726). In AUgemeine
Deutsche Biog. Vol. xwi. Leipzig. 1902.
Sophie Kurfiirstin von Hannover (1630-1714). In Allgemeine Deutsche Biog.
Vol. XXXIV. Leipzig. 1892.
Michael, W. Englische Geschichte im 18. Jahrhundert. Vol. i, pp. 281-400, 403-
69. Hamburg and Leipzig. 1896.
Pauli, R. Die Aussichten des Hauses Hannover auf den englischen Thron im Jahre
1711' In Fauli's Aufsatze zur englischen Creschichte. (New series.) Leipzig.
1883.
Confessionelle Bedenken bei der Thronbesteigung des Hauses Hannover in
England. In Fauli's Aufsatze zur englischen Geschichte. (New series.) Leipzig.
1883.
Banke, L. von. Englische Geschichte vomehmlich im xvii. Jahrhundert. 2nd
edn. Vol. vii : Grundlegung und Bedingungen der hanoverschen Succession.
Sammtliche Werke. Leipzig. 1871, etc. Vol. xxi. English translation: Oxford.
1876, etc. Vol. VI.
RoBcoe, E. S. Robert Hardy, Earl of Oxford. A Study of Politics and Letters in
the Age of Anne. London. 1902.
Salomon, F. Geschichte des letzten Ministeriums Konigin Annas von England,
1710-4, und der englischen Thronfolgefrage. Gotha. 1894.
Schaumann, A. Georg I, Kurfurst von Hannover (1600-1727). In AUgemeine
Deutsche Biog. Vol. viii. Leipzig. 1878.
Geschichte der Erwebung der Krone Grossbritanniens von Seiten des Hauses
Hannover. Hanover. 1878,
Johann Caspar von Bothmer (1656-1732). In Allgemeine Deutsche Biog.
Vol. III. Leipzig. 1876.
Zwei Aufsatze zur Geschichte des Weliischen Hauses. In Zeitschr. des hist.
Vereins fiir Niedersachsen, 1874r-6. Hanover.
Schmidt, H. Die Kurfiirstin Sophie von Hannover. With Appendix by A. Haupt:
Die bildende Kunst in Hannover zur Zeit der Kurfiirstin Sophie. No. v of
Verofifentlichungen zur Niede'rsachsischen Geschichte. Hanover. 1899, etc.
Sichel, W. Bolingbroke and his Times. Vol. i. London. 1901.
Stanhope, Earl (Lord Mahon). History of England from the Peace of Utrecht to
the Peace of Versailles, 1713-83. 3rd edn. VoL i. London. 1853.
Thornton, P. M. The Brunswick Accession. London. 1887.
Vehse, F. Geschichte der Hofe des Hauses Braunschweig in Deutschland und
England. Vol. i. (Gesch. d. deutschen Hofe seit d. Reformation. Vol. xviii.)
Hamburg. 1853.
Ward, A. W. The Electress Sophia and the Hanoverian succession. Paris and
London. 1903. 2nd edn. (revised). London. 1909.
The Electress Sophia and the Hanoverian succession. English Historical
Review. Vol. i. London. 1886.
Bibliography. 843
Ward, A. W. Great Britain and Hanover. Some aspects of the personal union.
Oxford. 1899. German translation, by K. Woltereck. Hanover. 1906.
Weber, O. Der Friede von Utrecht. Verhandlungen zwischen England, Frank-
reich, dem Kaiser u. der Generalstaaten, 1710-3. Gotha. 1891.
Wright, Th. Caricature history of the Georges, or Annals of the House of Hanover.
London. 1898.
Wyon, F. W. The History of Great Britain during the reign of Queen Anne.
Vol. n. London. 1876.
Bottger, H. Stammtafel der regierenden Fiirsten des Welfenhauses und ihrer Vor-
fahren. Hanover. 1858.
Bottger, H. Die allmahliche Entstehung der jetzigen welfischen Lande.
Zur Erlauterung der Stammtafel. 2nd edn. Hanover. 1869.
Guelph, Pedigree of the House of. Founded principally on L'Art de Verifier les
Dates. By W. A. Lindsay. Compiled for the Guelph Exhibition, 1891.
Stewart, Pedigree of the House of. Founded on the accounts printed in Wood's
edition of Douglas' Peerage. Ry W. A. Lindsay. Compiled for the Stewart
Exhibition, 1890.
B. Miscellaneous.
Beaucaire, H. de. Une mesalliance dans la maison de Brunswick (1666-1725).
Eleonore Desmier d'Olbreuze, duchesse de Zell. Paris. ] 884.
Bodemann, E. Neue Beitrage zur Geschichte der cellischen Herzogin Eleonore geb.
d'Olbreuse. Zeitsehr. des hist. Vereins fur Niedersachsen, 1887. Hanover.
J. H. von Ilten. Nebst Anlagen : Briefe an llten. Zeitsehr. des historischen
Vereins fur Niedersachsen, 1879. Hanover.
Chance, J. F. A Jacobite at the Court of Hanover. [On Lady Bellamont.] English
Historical Review. July, 1896. London.
Deecken, Count von der. Beitrage zur hannoverschen Geschichte unter Georg
Wilhelm, 1649-65. Vaterland. Archiv d. histor. Vereins fiir Niedersachsen.
Liineburg and Hanover. 1839.
Greenwood, A. D. Queens of the House of Hanover. Vol. i. (Sophia Dorothea.)
London. 1909.
Heimbiirger, H. T. Georg Wilhelm Herzog von Braunschweig und Liineburg
Cells. 1862.
Kocher, A. Die letzte Herzogin von Celle. Preussische Jahrb. lxiv. Berlin. 1899.
Gesch. von Hannover und Braunschweig, 1648-1714. Vols, i and ii, 1648-
68, have appeared so &r. Leipzig. 1884, etc.
Sophie Dorothea, Prinzessin von Ahlden (1666-1726). Allgemeine Deutsche
Biog. Vol. XXXIV. Leipzig. 1892.
Malortie, C. E. von. Beitrage zur Gesch. des braunschweig-ltineburgischea Hauses
und Hofes. 7 parts. Hanover. 1860-84.
Beitrage zur braunschweig-liineburg. Gesch. New Series. VoL i. Hanover.
1879.
- Der hanoversche Hof unter dem Kurfiirsten Ernst August und der Kurfurstin
Sophie. Hanover. 1847.
Meier, E. von. Hanoversche Verfessungs- und Verwaltungsgeschichte. 2 vols,
Leipzig. 1898-9.
Rocholl, H. Die Braunschweig-Luneburger im Feldzug d. Grossen Kurfursteu
gegen Frankreich. Zeitsehr. d. histor. Vereins fiir Niedersachsen, 1896. Hanover.
Spittler, C. T. Geschichte dps Fiirstenthums Hanover seit den Zeiten der Reformat
tion bis zu Ende des 17. Jahrh. 2nd edn. 2 vols. Hanover, 1798.
843 a Great Britain under George I.
Tjrtler, Sarah. Six Royal Ladies of the House of Hanover. London. 1898.
Wilkins, W. H. The love of an uncrowned Queen. Correspondence of Sophie
Dorothea with Count Konigsmarck. London. 1900.
Geerds, R. Die Briefe der Herzogin von Ahlden, etc. Beilage zur Allgemeinen
Zeitung, No. 77. Munich. 1902.
Sophia Dorothea. Edinburgh Review. January, 1901.
See also Appendix B to second edition of A. W. VTard, The Electress Sophia
(fltite, A).
(2) THE FOREIGN POLICY OF GEORGE I.
1714-21.
[See also Bibliographies to Section (1) of the present Chapter, to Chapters II, VII,
VIII, 1, and X of the present volume, and to Chapters I and II of Vol. K]
I. BIBLIOGRAPHIES.
(This list is confined to bibliographies specially concerning affairs treated in this
Section and not given elsewhere.)
Allen, C. F. Scandinavian bibliographies prefixed to Haandbog i Foedrelandets
Historie. Seventh edn. Copenhagen. 1870. And to the French translation by
E. Beauvois. Copenhagen. 1878.
Baden, G. L. Dansk-Norsk historisk Bibliothek. Odense. 1815.
Brunn, C. Bibliotheca Danica. Systematisk Fortegnelse over den Danske Literator
fra 1482 til 1830. Vol. iii. Copenhagen. 1896.
Hidalgo, D. Diccionario General de Bibliografia Espanola. 7 vols. Madrid.
1862-81.
Minzloff, R. Pierre le Grand dans la litt^rature etrangere. [Pablie k Toccasion de
I'anniversaire deux fois seculaire de la naissance de Pierre le Grand,] d'apresles
notes du Comte de Korff, etc. St Petersburg. 1872.
Pirenne, H. Bibliographie de I'histoire de la Belgique. Ghent. 1893. Second
edn., Ghent. 1902.
Setterwall, K. Svensk historiak Bibliografi, 1876-1900. Stockholm. 1907.
U. MANUSCRIPT SOURCES.
British Museum.
Alberoni, Cardinal. Unione de Scritture attenenti all' Em""" Giulio Alberoni, fetto
Cardinale li 12 Luglio, 1717, etc. 2 vols. Add. 16481-2. Sucessos de Alveroni,
y diligencias de la Corte de Espafia, en carta del duque de Parma de 21 de
Marzo 1721. Egerton, 361, f. 231. Manifiesto de el Oardenal Jullio Alveroni.
Carta escripta al Ex™" Senor Cardenal Paoluzzi secretario de Estado de N. Sefior.
(March 1, 1721.) Egerton, 361, f. 247. (French translation from an Italian
version, " Nouvelle Lettre," etc. Amsterdam. 1721.)
Carteret Papers. Official copies of Lord Carteret's despatches, etc., from Sweden,
1719-20, and as Secretary of State, 1721-4. Add. 22511-9 and 22523-4.
DayroUe Papers. Official diplomatic correspondence of James DayroUe, British
Resident at Geneva, 1716-7, and at The Hague, 1717-38. Vols, i-iv (1706-
38). Add. 15866-9. Letterbooks, Vols, ii-iv (1715-38). Add. 15876-8.
Bibliography. 843 A
Gualterio Papers. Correspondence, chiefly of Cardinal F. A. Gualterio, Protector
of the Eng^lish Catholics at Rome, with all the principal Courts of Europe, Add.
20241-20583 B ; of which, 20241, correspondence with Clement XI, 1716-9 ;
20242, registers of drafts of secret letteis, chiefly 1701-6 and 1716-7 ; 20243,
copies of Papal briefs, etc. ; 20292-20310, Jacobite correspondence ; 20311-13,
miscellaneous papers relating to England, 1701-28. Further Jacobite corre-
spondence. Add. 31254-67.
Gyllenborg, Count. Deciphers of his intercepted (or seized) correspondence, 1716-7,
Add. 32285, and of other like correspondence, French and Italian, 32307-8.
Histoire Politique du Siecle depuis 1648, jusqu'en 1748. Par I'editeur du Testament
Pol. du Cardinal Alberoni. The dedication is signed M. B. R., Lausanne,
October 10, 1763. Add. 4207, No. 5.
Melcombe Papers. Original correspondence and papers of George Bubb, Envoy
Extraordinary to Spain, 1714-8. 6 vols. Egerton 2170-5.
Monumenta Britanuica ex autographis Romanorum Pontificum deprompta.
Vol. xLviii. Add. 15398. (Includes important letters of Clement XI and
other Popes, with other papers, relating to the Pretender. Transcripts.)
Newcastle Papers. Vol. i (1697-1723). Add. 32686.
Noailles, Card. de. Correspondence with the Pretender, 1714-22. Egerton 1677.
Norris, Admiral Sir John. Journals, letter-books, etc.,' 1715-21. Add. 28128-9,
28135, 28143-7, 28164-6.
Northern Pacification^ The, 1719-20. Copies and drafts of papers concerning this
and other subjects. Add. 4193.
Ormonde, James Butler, Duke of. Letter-book, concerning the projected Spanish
invasion of 1719. Add. 33960. (Dickson, W. K. See under IV B below.)
Relazioni e scritture della Successione del Duca d' Angio di Francia, etc. Vol. xviii
includes a letter of the Marchese Grimaldi to Cardinal Acquaviva, August 9,
1717, on the invasion of Sardinia, with answers thereto. Add. 16468.
Robethon Papers. Miscellaneous correspondence and papers of Jean de Robethon,
confidential secretary to George I. Vols, vi-xi, 1714-9. Stowe 227-32.
Rome, Newsletters from, 1719-24. Add. 8381.
Schaub Papers. Correspondence and papers of Sir Luke Schaub, 1714-23, mostly
copies. Add. 4204.
Diplomatic correspondence, 1717-26. Add. 35837, iii.
Spanish correspondence, deciphers (6), 1719-20. Add. 32298.
Spanish War. (1) An Extract of the Masters Journalls of the Barfleur in relation to
the Engagement with the Spanish Fleet by Sir George Byng, 1718. (2) An
Account of Capt. Cavendish's Engagement with three Spanish Ships of Warr
Anno 1719. Extracted from the Masters Journalls of the Ships concerned in
that Expedition. Add. 6439, ff. 84, 90.
Losses sustained by Spanish Depredations at Sea and in Port in the years
1718, 1719, and 1720, etc. Add. 34335, f. 146.
Stanhope, General James. Letter-book (Hanover, etc.), July-Sept. 1716. Add.
22510.
Colonel W. Original despatches from Madrid, 1721. Add. 22620.
Sutton, Sir R., and others. Original despatches, etc., from Paris, 1721-2. Add.
22521-2.
Warrants (copies) for the payment of £130,000 to the Emperor, Jan. 2, I7l8, and
of £63,000 for the Queen of Sweden, Nov. 19, 1719. Addi 22616, ff. 1,78, 180.
Worsley, Henry. Original letters and despatches to him, when Ambassador to
Portugal, 1714-21, with various papers, including a narrative of the battle of
Cape Passaro. Add. 15936.
53—7
843 c Great Britain under George I.
III. PRINTED ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS.
A. Treaties and State Papers.
Most of the Treaties, without, of course, the secret articles, were puhlished in
various languages immediately upon their conclusion. The originals of the British
Treaties, and papers concerning them and others, may he consulted at the Public
Record Office (State Papers Foreign, Treaties and Treaty Papers).
See specially:
Cantillo, A. del. Tratados, convenios y declaraciones de paz y de comercio que han
hecho con las potencias estranjeras los monarcos espanoles de la casa de Borbon.
Desde el ano de 1700 hasta el dia. Madrid. 1843.
Collection of Treaties, Alliances and Conventions, a, relating to the Security,
Commerce, and Navigation of the British Dominions, made since His Majesty's
Accession to the Crown. London (S. Buckley). 1717-8. (Latin, French,
Spanish and English texts.)
Faher, A. (pseud.). Europaischer Staats-Cantzley, etc. (the title varies for each
volume). Vols, xxn sqq. Franlffort and Leipzig. 1714 foil.
Falck, N. N. Sammlung der wichtigsten Urkunden welche auf das Staatsrecht der
Herzogthumer Schleswig und Holstein Bezug haben. Kiel. 1847.
Garden, Comte de. Histoire gendrale des Traites de Paix et autres transactions
principales entre toutes les puissances de I'Europe depuis la paix de Westphalie.
Ouvrage comprenant les travaux de Koch, Schoell, etc., entierement refondus
et continues jusqu'a ce jour. Vols, i, iv, v. Paris. [1847.]
General Collection of Treatys of Peace and Commerce, Manifestos, Declarations of
War, and other Publick Papers, a, from the end of the Reign of Queen Anne to
the year 1731. VoL iv (the titles of the other volumes differ). London. 1732.
Ghillany, F. W. Diplomatisches Handbuch. . Sammlung der wichtigsten Euro-
paeischen Friedenschluesse, Congressacten, und sonstigen Staatsurkunden vom
Westphalischen Frieden bis auf die neueste Zeit. Parts i, u. Nordliugen,
1855. Bibl.
[Harris, W., D.D.] A Complete Collection of all the Marine Treaties subsisting
between Great Britain and France, Spain, etc. (1546-1763). London. 1779.
Hertslet, Sir E., C.B. Treaties and Tariffs regulating the trade between Great
Britain and foreign nations, etc. Part v, Spain. London. 1878.
Hochst-gemussigter Historischer-Acten-massiger Bericht, von dem was vom Anfang
der, im Monath Augusto 1713 angetretenen Regierung Carl Leopold,
Hertzogen zu Mecklenburg, bis zu der, im Monath Martio und April 1719
ergangenen Kayserlichen Execution, von dem Furstl. Mecklenburgischen
MiNisTERio, vorgenommen worden, etc. 1719. (886 docs.)
Martens, F. de. Recueil des Traites et Conventions conclus par la Russie avec les
Puissances Etrangeres. Vol. v, Germany (1656-1762). St Petersburg. 1880.
Vol. IX (x), England (1710-1801), ibid. 1892. Vol. xni, France (1717-1807),
ibid. 1902.
Martens, G. F. de. Supplement au Recueil des principaux Traites precede' de
Traite's du xviii""" siecle ante'rieurs a cet e'poque et qui se ne trouvent pas
dans le Corps Universel Diplomatique de M" Dumont et Rousset et autres
recueils g&^raux de traites. Vol. i. Gottingen. 1802.
Mod^e, G. R. Utdrag af de emellan Hans Konglige Majestat och Kronan Swerige
& ena, och Utrikes Magter & andra sidan, sedan 1718 slutna Alliance-Traktater
och Afhandlingar. Stockholm. 1761.
Noradounghian, G. Recueil d'Actes Internationaux de I'Empire Ottoman. Vol i
(1300-1789). Paris, Leipzig, Neuchitel. 1897.
Bibliography. 843 d
Sanmilung verschiedener Berichte, auch Staatschriften, den Tod Karls des XII, die in
Schweden hierauf erfolgten Veranderungen, und die Erhebung der Konigin
Ulricae Eleonorae auf den Schwedischen Thron, betrefifend. Second edn.
Freistadt (Jena). 1719.
Schleswig-Hoktein. Texts of the French and English guarantees, June and July
1720. Archives diplomatiques (ed. Amyot). Annde rv. Vol. i. Paris. 1860.
Testa, Baron I. de. Recueil des Trait^s de la Porte Ottomane avec les Puissances
Etraugeres, etc. Vol. ix. (Autriche, Vol. i.) Paris. 1898.
B. Letters, Despatches, bto.
Bosscha, P. De Geschiedenis van Oostelijk en Noordelijk Europa gedurende het
merliwaardig tijdvarlt van 1687-1716. (Correspondence of Dutch Ministers,
chiefly on Turkish a£Eairs.) Zalt-Bommel. 1860.
Brefvexling meUan Eonung Carl XII och R^det (1714-6). Historiska handlingar,
Kongligt Samfundet. Vols, xiv, xv. Stockholm. 1892-6.
Brunet, G. Correspondance complete de Madame Duchesse d'Orleans, nee Princesse
P^tine, Mere du Regent. Traduction entierement nouvelle. 2 vols. Paris.
1857. Later editions, Paris, 1869 [1904].
Carlson, E. Hapten Jefferyes bref til Engelska regeringen fr4n Bender och
Adrianopel, 1711-4, fr&n Stralsund 1714-6 (in English). Historiska handlingar.
VoL XVI, No. ii. Stockholm. 1897.
Konung Karl XII's egenhandiga Bref. Stockholm. 1893. German transl.
by E. Mewitts. Berlin. 1894.
Droysen, J. G. Eine Denkschrift Ilgen's [1716 ?]. Zur Politik von 1716 (corre-
spondence). Das Journal des Feldzugs von 1716. Ein Bericht von Bonnet.
(London, August 7/18, 1719). Lord Cadogan's Memorial und Graf Bothmer's
Project von 1721 (as to a coalition against Peter the Great). Geschichte der
preussischen Politik. Vol. iv. Part iv. Leipzig. 1870.
Elagin, S. Materialui dlya istorii russkago flota. Baltysky flota, 1702-26.
4 vols. St Petersburg. 1865-7.
[Gaspari, A. C] Briefe Friedrichs IV, Konigs in Danemark. Urkunden und
Materialien z. n. K. Gesch. und Staatsverwaltung Nordischer Reiche. Vol. i.
[Hamburg .''] 1786. [See especially letter of August 12, 1718, to Count Holsten-
Holstenborg, with the answer, and drafts for treaties with Great Britain and
Hanover.]
Gordon, Admiral Sir Thomas (of the Russian navy). Correspondence and papers of.
1716-40. Historical Manuscripts Commission. Report x. Part i, pp. 167-
99. London. 1885.
Handlingar rorande Skandinaviens historia. Kongligt Samfundet, Vols, vi, viii, x,
XII, xvui, XXI (Correspondence). Stockholm. 1816 sqq.
Hardwicke Miscellaneous State Papers. Vol. ii. No. ix. Lord Stair's Embassy
in France, 1714, etc. (Stair's journal and correspondence, 1714-9.) 1778.
Lamberty, G. de. Memoires pour servir a I'histoire du xviii' siecle. Vols, viii to
XI, 1714-8; Vol. X including Treaties of 1718 to 1751. Amsterdam. 1734-6.
(First edn., 1723.)
Critique by J. G. Droysen. Gesch. d. preuss. Politik. Vol. rv, Pt iv.
Leipzig. 1870.
Letters which passed between Count Gryllenborg, the Barons Gortz, Sparre, and
others, relating to the Design of raising a Rebellion in His Majesty's Dominions,
to be supported by a Force from Sweden. Published by Authority. London.
1717. (French and English.) Also printed in Tindal's History, and Cobbett's
843 e Great Britain under George I.
Parliamentary History. Translations in various languages. The originals- at
the Public Record Office, chiefly in State Papers, Poreigfu; Confidential i*, i°.
Deciphers, British Museum. Add. mss. 82285, 32307-8.
Moe, B. Actstykker til den norske Erigshistorie under Kong Frederik den Fjerde
(17'16-8). Reprinted from the Milit Tidsskrift, vols, xv-xvii. 3 parts.
Christiania. 1838-40.
Privateersj The Ordinance of, 8-19 February 1715. The Swedish text in G. Floder's
Handlingar horande til Konung Carl XII's historian Part iv. Stockholm. 1826.
French translation, and pamphlets concerning it, Lamberty, vol. ix. Abstract,
English Historical Review, vol. xvii, p. 70.
Russia. — Diplomatic coiTespondence, chiefly of French ministers in Russia, 1711-33.
(French.) Sbornik, etc. Vols, xxiv, xl, xlix, lii, lviii, lxiv, lxxv, lxxxi.
Diplomatic correspondence of James Jefferyes and other English Ministers in
Russia, 1711-40; lb. Vols, lxi, lxvi, lxxvi, lxxx, lxxxv. Other Corre-
spondence) etc. lb. Vols. Ill, v, XI, XV, xxv, xxxiv (2). St Petersburg.
-1893.
llieiner, A. Monuments historiques relatifs aux regnes d' Alexis Michaelowitch,
Feodor III et Pierre le Grand, Czars de Russie, extraits des Archives du
Vatican et de Naples. (Includes important despatches of the Papal Nuncio,
1715-25, about Russian doings in Courland, Poland, etc.) Rome. 1859.
Townshend, Charles, Viscount. Extracts from his correspondence. Historical
Manuscripts Commission. Report xi. Part iv. London. 1887.
VilleboiSj Sieur de. Memoires secrets pour servir a I'histoire de la Cour de Russie,
sous les regnes de Pierre-le-Grand et de Catherine I^. Rediges et publics par
le Comte The'ophile Hallez. Paris. 1858.
Wijnne, J. A. Stukken rakende de Quadrupel AUiantie van 1718, (Despatches
of Dutch envoys, etc., Jan.-Jiily 1720.) Krouiek of Utrecht Historical Society,
27 Jaargang, 1871, 6th Ser., Pt ii. Utrecht. 1872.
C. Periodicals otbeb than NBWSPAPEnas.
{The principal British newspaper of the time was the London Gamette, thrice weekly.)
Ite Annals of King George. Year the first, to sixth, containing not only the afeirs
of Great Britain, but the general History of Europe during that time ; with an
introduction in defence of His Majesty's title, etc. 6 vols. London. 1716-21.
La Clef du Cabinet des Princes de I'Europe, ou Recueil Historiqae et Politique sur
les matieres du terns. (Monthly ; half-yearly volumes.)
Die Europaische Fama, welche den gegenwartigen Zustand der vornehmsten Hofe
entdeckt. Parts i-ccciiX. 30 vols. [Leipzig.] 1702-35.
The Historical Register, containing an Impartial Relation of all Transactions
Foreign and Domestick. Vols. i. foil, (from 1716). London. I7l7 foil.
Supplementary: Transactions... that happen'd during the first Seventeen
Mouths of the Reign of King George. 2 vols. London. 1724.
Lettres Historiques ; contenant ce qui se passe de plus important en Europe ; et les
reflexions ne'cessaires sur ce sujet. Monthly ; half-yearly volumes. Vols.
XLVsqq. 1714, etc. The Hague ; from Vol. xLviii, Amsterdam. 1692-1736.
Bibliography. 843^
IV. SECONDARY WORKS, CONTEMPORARY OR NEARLY
CONTEMPORARY.
A. Memoirs and Journals.
[See abo Bibliography to Section (1) above and Chapter II.]
Bonnac, Marquis de. M^moire historique snr I'Ambassade do France i Con-
stantinople, par le Marquis de Bonnac. Publ. par C. Schefer. (Society d'histoire
diplomatique.) Paris. 1894. (Docs.)
Bruce, P. H. Memoirs of Peter Henry Bruce. Translated by himself (17S3),
from his original German, and published after his death. London. 1782.
Franclieu, Marquis de. Memoires du Marquis de Franclieu (1680-1746). Ed.
L. de Germon. (Societe historique de Gascog^e : Archives historiques de la
Gascogue, Ser. II, fasc. i.) Paris and Auch. 1896. [Valuable for the Duke of
Ormond's expedition of 1719.J
Galitzin (Golitsuin), Prince A., ed. La Russie au xviii° siecle. Memoires in^dits
sur les regnes de Pierre le Grand, Catherine I^ et Pierre II. Paris. 1863.
Ker, John. The Memoirs of John Ker, of Kersland in North Britain. With
au Account of the Rise and Progress of the Ostend Company in the Austrian
Netherlands. Published by himself. 3 vols. London. 1726.
Le Dran. Memoires sur les negociations entre la France et le Czar de la Grande
Russie Pierre I (1719-24). Sbornik imp. russk. istor. obschtschestra, Vols, xl,
xMx, MI. St Petersburg. 1884-6. Prefaced in Vol. xxxiv (Appendix) by
Traites d' entre la France et la Moscovie, 1613-1717 ; an essay chiefly consisting
of Negociations entre la France et le Czar Pierre I. 1716-7. St Petersburg.
1881.
Peter the Great's Journal from 1698 to the conclusion of the Peace of Nystad. Ed.
Prince M. Shcherbatov. 2 vols. St Petersburg. 1770-2. Complete trans-
lation, by H. L. C. Bacmeister and C. G. Arndt. 3 vols. Riga. 1774-6-84.
Pollnitz, Baron de. Nouveaux Memoires du Baron de Pollnitz, conteuant I'Histoire
de sa vie, et la Relation de ses premiers voyages. 2 vols. Amsterdam. 1737.
B. Histories and Pamphlets.
[See also Bibliographies to Chapters II (1), ///, IV and F.]
Account, an, of the rise of the War with Spain in 1718. London. 1740.
Alberoni, Cardinal. The Conduct of Card. Alberoni, with an Account of some
Secret Transactions at the Spanish Court. London. 1720.
TheHistory of Card. Alberoni, from his Birth to the year 1719. To which are
added. Considerations upon the Present State of the Spanish Monarchy.
Translated from the originals. London. 1719. [Perhaps a translation of the
work attributed to J. Rousset de Missy, below.]
Bolingbroke, Viscount. Works. 8 vols. 1809. (Vols, i-in.)
Bothmer, Count. Memoiren d. Engl. Ministers Grafen Bothmer iiber die Quadru-
pelallianz von 1718. Ed. R. Doebner. Forsch. z. deutsch. Gesch. VoL xxvi,
Gottingen. 1886.
Colliber, S. Columna Rostrata, or, a Critical History of the English Sea-Affairs.
London. 1727 and 1742.
CH. I.
843^ Great Britain under Creorge I.
[Corbett, T.] An Account (or, a True Account) of the Expedition of the British
Fleet to Sicily in the years 1718, 1719 and 1720, under the command of Sir
George Byng, Bart., etc. London. 1739. French translation : Relation
de I'expe'dition de la Flotte Angloise, 1718-20. The Hague. 1741.
De la Gardiska Archivet, ed. P. Wieselgren. Vol. xvi. (1) Fredrik, Prins af
Hessen. (2) Fredspunkter emellan Carl XII och Czar Fetter I fundne i
Gortzens papper. (3) Ytterligare om K. Carl XII's dod. (4) Drottning
Ulrika Eleanora d. y. (6) Riksdagen 1719. (6) Riksdagen 1720. (7) K.
Fredrik I. Lund. 1842.
[Defoe, D.] The History of the Wars of his late Majesty Charles XII, King
of Sweden, from his First Landing in Denmark to his Return from Turkey to
Pomerania. The Second Edition. With a Continuation to the Time of his
Death. By a Scots Gentleman in the Swedish service. London. 1720.
[Defoe, D. ?] The case of the War in Italy stated : being a Serious Enquiry how
far Great-Britain is Engaged to Concern it Self in the Quarrel between the
Emperor and the King of Spain. London. 1718.
Die abgezogene Masque des Alandischen Friedens-Congresses...Eine Schrifft, in
welcher die Intriguen des Weltbekannten Barons von Gortz, und bisherigen
Absichten des Russischen Hofes wahrhafftig und deutlich entdecket werden.
A. d. Frantzos. und Holland, ins Teutsche Ubersetzet. Hamburg. 1720.
Discussion universelle de tous les articles du Traite de la Barriere des Pais-Bas
entre sa Majeste Impdriale et Catholique, Sa M. le Roy de la Grande Bretagne,
& Les Seigneurs Btats Gendraux des Provinces Unies. Par le Sr. S***.
Cologne. [1716 .^
Disquisitio Juris Naturalis et Gentium de justo Gyllenborgii et Goertzii, Sueciae
legatorum in Britannia et Confoederato Belgio, arresto. With German trans-
lation. Frankfort and Leipzig. 1717.
[Gyllenborg, Count C] The Northern Crisis : or. Impartial reflections on the
policies of the Czar. Occasioned by van Stocken's Reasons for delaying the
descent upon Schonen (prefixed in transl.). 1716. French translation : La Crise
du Nord, etc. London. 1717.
[ ] An English Merchant's Remarks upon a scandalous Jacobite paper published
in the Post Boy under the name of A Memorial presented to the Chancery of
Sweden by the Resident of Great Britain. London. 1716. French translation
in Lamberty. ix. 667.
Interest, the, of Great Britain with Relation to the Differences among the Northern
Potentates, consider'd.... (The dedication to Stanhope signed A. Boyer.)
London. 1716. [Defence of the policy of George I.]
Istoria del Cardinale Alberoni dal giorno della sua nascit4 fino alia meta dell' anno
1720. Seconda edizione. Amsterdam. 1720.
Kluver, H. H. Hans Heinrich Kliiver's Beschreibung des Herzogthums Mecklen-
burg u. dazu geh. Lander. Parts IV, V (1713-29). Hamburg. 1739-40. {Docs.)
La Conduite des Cours de la Grande Bretagne et Espagne, ou Relation de ce qui
s'est pass^ entre ces deux Cours par rapport k la situation pr^sente des affaires.
Amsterdam. 1719. Engl. tr. 1720.
Letter, a, to a Friend at the Hague, concerning the Danger of Europe, and
particularly of Great Britain, in case the Quadruple Alliance should not
succeed. (London, June 23, 1718.) London. 1718.
" Nestesuranoi, Ivan " (J. Rousset de Missy). Me'moires du Regne' de Pierre le
Grand. Vols, iii, iv. The Hague and Amsterdam. 1726. Later editions,
Amsterdam (4 vols.), 1728-30, and (6 vols.), 1740.
Critique by J. G. Droysen. Geschichte der preussischen Politik. Vol. iv,
Pt. IV, Leipzig. 1870.
Pffefiftnger, Job. Friderich (Konigl. Gross-Britannischen Rath), Historie des
Bibliography, 843 h
Braunschweig-Liineburgischen Hauses, bis auf das Jahr 1733, etc. Part in.
Hamburg. 1734.
Reasous for a War with France. The Second Edition. London. 1716. (Dunkirk
and Mardyk, with Prior's memorial and the answer, and a general discussion.)
An Argument against a War with France, wherein a late Pamphlet entitled
"Reasons for a War," is... refuted, etc. 1716.
Reasons for the present Conduct of Sweden, in relation to the Trade in the Baltick,
etc. London. 1716.
Reflections upon the Present State of affairs in France In a Letter to the Right
Honourable the E. of S . London. 1716.
Relacion de lo sucedido en el regno de Sicilia por las armas de su Magestad.
Barcelona. [1719.]
Relacion veridica del combate que el 11 Agosto 1718, huvo entre la Armada de
Espana y la de Inglaterra en las Costas Orientales de Sicilia, y en la Canal de
Malta. Madrid.
Rousset de Missy, J. Histoire du Cardinal Alberoni, trad, de I'Espagnol [which
is untrue]. The Hague. 1719.
Critique by J. G. Droysen, as above.
San Phelipe, Marqufe de. Comentarios de la Guerra de Espana, e historia de su
Rey Phelipe V el Animoso, desde el principio de su Reynado, hasta la Paz
General del ano 1725. Genoa [1790 ?]. French translation by L. L. F^derbe,
Comte de Maudave. 4 vols. Amsterdam. 1756. Mutilated. German trans-
lation from this (not from the Spanish, as stated). Mittau, etc. 1772-7.
(The principal source for the history of Philip V.)
Schmauss, J. J. Johann Jacob Schmaussens Einleitung zu der Staats-Wi'ssen-
schaft, und Erleuterung des von ihm herausgegebenen Corporis Juris Gentium
Academici und aller andem seit mehr als zweyen Seculis her geschossenen
Bundnisse, Friedens- und Commercien-Tractaten. i. Sec. m (1700-40). Die
Historie der Balance von Europa, der Barrifere der Niederlande, der Oester-
reichischen Sanctionis pragmaticae, etc. Leipzig, 1741. ii. Sec. ii (1700-43).
Die Historie aller zwischen den Nordischen Potentzen, Danemarck, Schweden,
Russland, Poland und Preussen geschlossenen Tractaten in sich haltend.
Leipzig. 1747.
Secret Memoirs of the New Treaty of Alliance with France ; with some Characters
of Persons. London. 1716.
Some Considerations upon his Majesty's Message ; and the Dutchies of Bremen and
Verden. In a Letter to the Worshipful Mr , Mayor of S . To which
is prefix'd, A Map of those Dutchies; and of the Rivers Elbe and Weser.
(8 April, 1717.) London. 1717.
Stanhope, Earl. Memoirs of the Life and Actions of the Right Honourable James
Earl Stanhope. With his Character, and a Poem occasion'd by his Death.
London. 1721.
Struve, B. G. Memoires pour servir a I'Histoire du Congres de Cambrai, avec nn
Traite historique sur les Investitures de quelques ^tats d'ltalie. 1723.
Discurs vom Uhrspruug, Unterscheid und Gerechtsamen der Lande-Stande
in Teutschland, insonderheit im Hertzogthum Mecklenburg; wobey die im
Jahre 1715 zwischen dem reg. Hertzog Carl Leopold von Mecklenburg-
Schwerin und der Mecklenburg. Ritter- und Landschafft enstandene Dispute
erortert werden. ,Hrsgbn. von C. G. J. [C. G. Jargowj. Hamburg. 1741.
Theatrum Europaeum. Theatri Europaei Zwantzigster Theil. 2 parts (1713-6).
Frankfort. 1734. Jubilaeum Theatri Europaei. 2 parts (1716-8). Frank-
fort. 1738.
Townshend, Viscount. An Impartial Enquiry into the Conduct of the Right
Honourable Charles Lord Viscount T . London. 1717.
843 i Great Britain under George I.
V. LATER WORKS.
A. Great Britain.
[See also Bibliographies of Section 1 above and Chapters II and III.']
Acton, Lord. The Hanoverian Settlement. Lectures on Modem History, xvi. 1906.
Ballantyne, A. Lord Carteret^ a political biography, 169&-1763. London. 1887.
Bussemaker, Th. De Triple-AUiantie van 1717. Bijdragen voor vaderlandsche
Geschiedenis en Oudheidkunde. Series lv. Part ii. The Hague. 1901.
Chance, J. F. George I and the Northern War. London. 1909.
Clowes, Sir W. L., and others. The Royal Navy. Vol. m (1714^92). London. 1898.
Colomb, Rear-Admiral Sir P. H. Naval warfare, its ruling principles and practice
historically treated. 1891, etc.
Dickson, W. K. The Jacobite Attempt of 1719. (Publications of the Scottish
History Society. Vol. xix.) Edinburgh. 1895.
Leadam, I. S. The Political History of England, Vol. ix : from the Accession of
Anne to the death of George II (1702-60). London. 1909.
Mahan, Capt. A. T. The Influence of Sea Power upon History. 1660-1783.
Boston (Mass.). 1890, etc.
Mahon, Lord (Earl Stanhope). History of England from the peace of Utrecht to
the peace of Versailles. (Vols, i and ii.) London. 1853 and 1858.
Michael, W. Englische Geschichte im 18 Jahrh. Vol. i. Hamburg and Leipzig.
1896.
Weber, O. Die Quadrupel-AUianz vom Jahre 1718. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte
der Diplomatie im achtzehnten Jahrhundert. Vienna, etc. 1887.
Whitworth, Sir C. State of the Trade of Great Britain in its imports and exports,
progressively from the year 1697. London. 1776.
B. The Netherlands.
[See also Bibliography of Chapters XIV 2 of Vol. K]
fiussche, E. van den. Le Traits de la Barriere. Ponrquoi I'art. 1 de la convention
de 1718, snr les limites entre la Flandre et le territoire soumis aux jfitats-
Gdndraux ne fut point execute. "La Flandre, annee 1880." Bruges. 1880.
Dollot, R. Les origines de la neutralite de la Belgique et le systeme de la
Barriere, 1609-1830. Paris. 1902. {Bibl. and Docs.)
C. France, Spain and Italy.
[See also Bibliographies of Chapters IV and F.]
Armstrong, E. Alberoni and the Quadruple Alliance. The Scottish Review.
Vol. XXIX. London. 1897.
Elizabeth Farnese. London. 1892.
Baraudon, A. Le Roi de Sicile Victor Amadde II et la Triple Alliance (1716-20).
Annales de I'Ecole Libre des Sciences Politiques, Vols, vi, vii. Paris. 1891-2.
La Maison de Savoie et la Triple Alliance (1713-22). Paris. 1896.
Bliard, P. Dubois, Cardinal et Premier Ministre. 2 vols. Paris. [1901.]
Dubois et I'Alliance de 1717. Revue des questions historiques. Vol. ixviii.
Paris. July. 1900.
Bossaud, A. Le Port de Dunkerque apres le traite d' Utrecht. Ibid. Vol. xxx.
Dunkirk. Paris. 1898.
Bibliography. 843 k
Carutti, D. Storia del Regno di Vittorio Amadeo II (1675-1730). Turin. 1866.
2nd edn. Florence. 1863.
Criticism on Carutti's works by S. Bersani, Storia del Cardinale Griulio
Alberoni. Appendix. Piacenza, 1661.
Fantin, A. E. N. des Odoards. Histoire de France, depuis la mort de Louis XIV
jusqu a la paix de Versailles de 1783. Vols, i, ii (1716-36). Paris. 1789.
Fernandez Duro, C. Armada Espanola desde la Union de los Reinos de Castilla 7
de Aragon. Vol. vi. Madrid. 1900.
Filon, C. A. D. L' Alliance Anglaise au dix-huitieme siecle. Depuis la paix
d'Utrecht jusqu'a la guerre de la succession d'Autriche. (Memoire lu a
rAcademie des Sciences Morales et Politiques.) Paris. 1860.
Flassan, G. de Raxis de. Histoire generale et raisonnee de la Diplomatic Fran^aise.
2nd edn. Vols iv, v (1679-1784). Paris and Strassburg. 1811.
Gaillard, G. H. Histoire de la rivalite de la France et de I'Espagne. Vol. viii.
Paris. 1801.
La Rocca, L. La cessione del Regno di Sardegna alia Casa Sabauda. (Miscellanea
di Storia Patria. R. Deputazione sovra gli studi di Storia Patria, etc. 3'*
Series, VoL X.) Turin. 1906. {Bibl. and Docs.)
Lavisse, E. Histoire de France. Vol. viii. Part 2. {To appear.)
Legrelle, A. La Diplomatie fi'an9aise et la Succession d'Espagne. Vol. vi. La
Paix. (1710-26.) Second edn. Braine-le-Comte. 1899.
Martin, B. L. H. Histoire de France depuis les temps les plus recules jusqu' en
1789. Fourth edn. VoL xv. Paris. 1878.
H. de r]^pinois. Critiques et refutations. M. Henri Martin et son Histoire
de France. Paris. 1872.
Ranke, L. von. Franzosische Geschichte, vomehmlicli im sechszehnten und sieb-
zehuten Jahrhundert. Vol. iv. Book xvii. Die Regeutschaft und Cardinal
Fleiiry. Stuttgart and Tubingen. 1866. (Werke, Vol. xi. Leipzig. 1869.)
Schmidt, E. A. Geschichte von Frankreich. (Gesch. der europaischen Staaten.)
VoL IV. Hamburg. 1848.
Wiesener, L. Le Regent, I'Abbe Dubois et les Anglais, d'apres des sources
Britanniques. 3 vols. Paris. 1891-3-9. {Does.)
D. The Empibe and the German States.
[See also Bibliography of Chapter VIII 1.]
Beer, A. Znr Geschichte der Politik Karls VI. Historische Zeitschrift, Vol. lv.
Munich and Leipzig. 1866.
Droysen, J. G. Die Wiener Allianz vom 6 Januar 1719. Abhandlungen zur
neueren Geschichte. No. vii. Leipzig. 1876. Also in his Geschichte der
preussischen Politik. Vol. iv. Part iv. (Text of the treaty with notes
by Ilgen and Frederick William I.) Leipzig. 1870.
Critique by W. Michael. Ein schwieriger diplomatischer Fall aus dem Jahre
1719. Historische Zeitschrift, lxxxviii. Part i. Munich. 1901.
Geschichte der preussischen Politik. V6l. iv. Parts 11 and iv. Leipzig.
1869-70. Second edn. 1872. Index to Vols. 1 to iv, by C. Gerstenberg. Leipzig.
1876.
Erdmannsdorffer, B. Deutsche Geschichte vom Westphalischen Frieden bis zum
Regierungsantritt Friedrichs des Grossen. 1648-1740. Vol. 11. Berlin.
1893.
Franck, D. Alt- und Nenes Mecklenburg. Vol. vi, Book xvii : Von Mecklenburgs
Zerriittung in alien Standen, etc. (1713-27). Gustrow and Leipzig. 1767.
843 1 Great Britain under George I.
Gottorp. — Gesch. d. Herzoglich Schleswig-Holstein-Gottorfischen Hofes und dessen
vornehmsten Staats-Bedienten unter der Regierung Herzog Friedrichs IV und
dessen Sohnes Herzog Carl Friedriohs. (1700-34.) Frankfort and Leipzig. 1774.
GrafFj W. P. Die zweite Ehe des Herzogs Karl Leopold. Ein Kulturbild ans
Mecklenburg im ersten Viertel des 18 Jahrhunderts. Jahrbiicher des Vereins
fur Mecklenburgische Geschichte uud Alterthumskunde, Jahrgang lx.
Schwerin. 1896. {Bibl.)
Havemann^ W. Geschichte der Lande Bmunschweig und Liineburg. Vol. u.
Luneburg. 1838. New edn. Vol. iii. Gottingen. 1857.
Mailathj Count J. Geschichte des ostreichischen Kaiserstaates. (Gesch. der
europaischen Staaten.) Vol. iv. Hamburg. 1848.
MattiiiaSj C. Die Mecklenburger Frage in der ersten Halfte des achtzehnten
Jahrhunderts, und das Decret des Kaisers Karls VI vom 11 Mai 1728.
Hallische AbhandlungeUj 1885.
Menzelj K. A. Neuere Geschichte der Deutschen von der Reformation bis zur
Bundesacte. Vol. x. Die Zeit Karls VI und die Aoi^nge Friedrichs II,
Breslau. 1843 and 1854-5.
Moller, C. Geschichte Schleswig-Holsteins. Von der altesten Zeit bis auf die
Gegenwart. Vol. ii. Hanover. 1866.
Pratjoj J. H. Die Herzogthiimer Bremen und Verden, ein Eigenthum des konig-
lichen Grossbritannischen und Churfurstlichen Braunschvreig-Liineburg'schen
Hauses. (Vermischte historische Sammlungen. Herausgegeben unter Leitung
des vaterlandischen Vereins zu Stade. Vol. i. No. zi.) Stade. 1842.
{Treaties and docs.)
PrutZj H. Preussische Geschichte. Vol. ii. Stuttgart. 1900.
Ranke, L. von. Neun Bucher Freussischer Geschichte. Vol. i (Book i). Berlin.
1847. Zwolf Bucher Preussischer Geschichte. Vol. in (Weike, Vol. xxvii).
Leipzig. 1874. English tr. by Sir A. and Lady DuflF Gordon. Vol. i. 1849.
Schleswig-Holstein. — Beseler, G. Die englisch-franzosische Garantie vom Jahre
1720. Berlin. 1864. Does. Cf. Archives Diplomatiques (ed. Amyot), Annee IV.
Vol. 1. Paris. 1864.
Thomsen, G. Om de Fransk-Engelske Garantie for Slesvig af 1720.
(A. F. Krieger's Antislesvigholstenske Fragmenter, No. m.) Copenhagen.
1848. (Correspondence and docs.) German and French translations. Copen-
hagen. 1848.
£. Scandinavia.
[See also Bibliographies of Chap. XIX qf Vol. V and Chap. XXII of present Vol."]
Allen, C. F. Haandbog i Foedrelandets Historic. 7th edn., revised and improved,
Copenhagen. 1870. (Bibl.) French translation by E. Beauvois. Copenhagen.
1878. (Bibl.)
Backstrom, P. O. Svenska ilottans historia. Stockholm. 1884.
Baden, G. L, Danmarks Riges Historic. Vol, v. Copenhagen. 1832.
Bain, R. N. Scandinavia, a political history of Denmark, Norway and Sweden, from
1613 to 1900. (Cambridge Historical Series.) Cambridge. 1906.
Beskow, B. von. Friherre Georg Henrik von Gortz, statsman och statsoffer.
Svenska Akad. Handlingar ifrftn 4r 1796, Vol. xliii. Stockholm. 1868.
Carlson, F, F. Om fredsunderhandlingarne Aren 1709-18. Ett bidrag till Carl XII's
historia. Stockholm. 1867.
Cedercreutz, Baron H. Sverige under Ulrica Eleonora och Fredric I, eller ifrin
1718 till 1751. Efter den, af framledne Hans Excellens Riks-BAdet, Herr
Friherre Cedercreutz, forfattade handskrift. Ett inledande bihang till Skriften
Tessin och Tessiniana. Stockholm. 1821.
Bibliography. 843 m
Larsson, H. Grefve Karl Gyllenborg i London ftren 1715-7. Ett bidrag till
Sreriges yttre Politik under Karl XII's sista regerings&r. Gothenburg. 1891.
[Moser, F. C, Baron von.] Kettung der Ehre und Unschuld des Freyherrn von
Schlitz, genannt von Goerz, etc Mit xxx Beylagen. 1776. 2* enlarged edn.
Hamburg. 1791. Docs.
Scherer, H. Der SundzoU, seine Geschichte, sein jetziger Bestand, und seine
Etaatsrechtlich-politische Losung. Berlin. 1845.
Stavenow, L. Frihetstiden, 1713-72. Part iii of Sveriges historia intill tjugonde
seklet. Ed. E. Hildebrand. Stockholm. 1903. German translation:
Geschichte SchwedenSj 1718-72, by C. Koch. (Geschichte Schwedens, Vol. vii.
Gesch. d. europ. Staaten.) Gotha. 1908.
Syveton, G. L'erreur de Goertz. Revue d'histoire diplomatique. Vol. ix, No. iii.
Vol. X, Nos. ij II, III, IV. Paris. 1895-6.
Woltmann, K. L. Freiherr von Gorz, Frennd Karls des Zwolften. Woltmann's
Geschichte und Politik, Vols, i, ii. Berlin. 1800.
F. Russia, Turkey, etc.
\See also Bibliographies of Ohaps. XVII and XIX of Vol. V and of Chap. XIX o
of present Vol.]
Abeken, H. Der Eintritt der Tvirkei in die Europaische Politik des achtzehnten
Jahrhunderts. Berlin. 1856.
Hartmann, K. J. Tsar Peter's Underhandlingar 1716 om LandgAng i Skine.
Helsingfors. 1887. (Critical bibl. and docs.)
Herrmann, E. Geschichte des russischen Staates. (Geschichte der europaischen
Staaten.) Vol. iv. Hamburg. 1849.
Popov, N. A. Materialui dlya istory morskago dyela pri Petrye Velikom', v" 1717-
20 godakh'. (Materials for the history of naval affairs in the time of Peter the
Great, in the years 1717-20.) Moscow. 1859.
Solov'ev, S. M. Istoria Rossy s' drevnyeishikh' vremen'. (History of Russia from
the earliest times.) Vols, xvii, xvui. Moscow. 1867-8. "Second" edn.
Vol. IV. St Petersburg. [1896.] Docs.
Stoerk, F. Das Greifswalder Biindniss zwischen Peter d. Gr. und Georg I vom
28/17 Oktober 1715. (Separatabdruck aus Pommersche Jahrbiicher. Vol. ii.)
Greifswald. 1901.
Uhlenbeck, C. C. Verslag aangaande een onderzoek in de archieven van Rusland
ten bate der Nederlandsche Geschiedenis. Part in. Het tijdperk van Koera-
kiens verblijf hier te land (1711-24). The Hague. 1891. (Bibl. by T. Cordt.
Docs.)
Ustryalov, N. G. Russkaya Istoria. Vol. in (1689-1762). St Petersburg. 1838.
6th edn. Vol. ii. St Petersburg. 1865. [Introduction and critical bibliography
in Vol. I.]
Veselago, T. T. Ocherk' russkoi morskoi istorii. (Outline of Russian naval
history, to 1725.) St Petersburg. 1876.
CB. I.
844
CHAPTER 11.
THE AGE OF WALPOLE AND THE PELHAMS.
(1) GENERAL
I. BlBLIOSRAPHIES.
Fortescue, G. K. Subject Index of the Modern Works added to the Library of the
British Museum, 1881-1900. London. 1902 ; 1901-6 ; 1906.
For diplomatic matters, so far as they relate to France :
Monod, G. Bibliographie de I'histoire de France a 1789. Paris. 1888.
For English political history :
Leadam, I. S. Political History of England, 1702-62, pp. 603 sqq., supplies a good
critical bibliography.
For all American and Colonial affairs :
The Literature of American History, by various writers. Ed. J. N. Larned, and
supplements in subsequent years. London. 1902. A most valuable critical
bibliography.
II. Manuscript Socrobs.
A. Diplomacy and Foreign Affairs.
References to the unpublished material in Hanover, Berlin, Vienna, the Hague,
Madrid, Paris, and Edinburgh are given in the Bibliographies to Chapters i, iii, iv
and V. Unpublished documents dealing with Jacobite affairs are fully described in
the Bibliography to Chapter iii. So far as the English Records are concerned, the
following is the unpublished material on which the present Chapter is based.
For the diplomatic history of the period :
British Museum. Stowe mss. 246-7. Craggs Papers, being principally letters to
James Craggs the younger, Secretary at War and Secretary of State, from Earl
of Stair etc. (1711-20.)
Stowe MSB. 261, Townshend, Viscount. Transcripts of correspondence when at
Hanover in 1723. [Mostly in Coxe's Memoirs of Sir R. Walpole. Vol. ii.
Appendix. London. 1798.]
Add. MSS. 32743-4. Correspondence of Newcastle, W. Stanhope, Horatio (Lord)
Walpole, Viscount Townshend, etc. 1724-6. [Partly used by Coxe.]
Add. MSS. 32780-2. Correspondence of Newcastle and Waldegrave.
Add. MSS. 37444. Correspondence of Newcastle, Horatio (Lord) Walpole, Viscount
Townshend etc. Important for the year 1726.
Bibliography. 845
For the Spanish War and its causes, 1738-9 :
Add. Mss. 23802, f. 86, 23803, f. 121; Add. mss. 32091-2; Add. mss. 35406-7
passim ; Hardwicke Correspondence ; Add. mss. 32800 ; Add. mss. 33028 ; for a
general detail of the South Sea Company's affairs v. Add. mss. 33032, copy, ff. 218-28,
ff. 277-82 ; the documents as to British Rights on the Mosquito Shore from 1672
onwards are transcribed in Stowe mss. 256, ff. 305-17, and Add. mss. 33117, ff. 26-37.
The papers at the Public Record Office, some of which are duplicated at the
British Museum, exhibit a far fuller detail of the causes of the War ; see especially
the following :
Public Record Office, State Papers Foreign, Spain, 109, 113, 118, 130, 131-4,
the correspondence between Keene and Newcastle passim ; see also P.R.O., S.P.F.,
Spain, 224, for the reports of Consuls at Cadiz, Barcelona, etc. ; the proofs of
Newcastle's duplicity as to the Counter Orders — described in the text — will be
found in P.R.O., Admiralty Outletters. Vol. lv, pp. 194^8, 208, 230-6, 242-6,
270, 296, 304, 370, 389, 445 sqq.
British Museum. Stowe mss. 266 ff., 282-304, shows the respective attitudes of
Pitt and Keene towards Spain in 1757 and is interesting by way of comparison with
1789. This correspondence has been printed (apparently from copies) in Hist.
mss. Comm. Rep. x. App. 1, pp. 212-21.
At the British Museum other parts of the Newcastle and Hardwicke Corre-
spondence than those mentioned supply materials of great value for the period, but
the arrangement of both series, especially of the Hardwicke Papers, is too hetero-
geneous in character to permit of further specific reference. The Coxe Papers, Add.
MSS. 9128-97, afford a vast mine of information, which has already been much used.
Besides these sources the Whitworth Papers, British Museum Add. mss. 37361-97
[Charles Lord Whitworth was envoy at various Courts and Plenipotentiary at
Cambray, 1722-5], will probably be found to contain materials of the most value. For
English policy generally see B. Williams (below IV 2), who gives many mss. references
for the period 1721-31. For Spain see Baudrillart (below III A).
B. Home Afairs.
The Newcastle and Hardwicke Papers are again our chief source of information —
but suffer even more from the defects above alluded to — viz. the miscellaneous and
uuchronological character of their arrangement. For this period as a whole the
following volumes, which have been used in the preparation of this chapter, may be
found useful. They contain many details on the party disputes and Ministerial
intrigues of the period.
British Museum. Add. mss. 32947; 32994-99; 35336; 35408; 35416; 36423-4;
35870.
The working of the Cabinet-system during the eighteenth century — a subject
full of difficulty — is probably most fully illustrated by the following volumes at the
Public Record Office :
Home Office ConncU Office. Vols, x, xvi, xix, xx.
Home Office Secretaries Letter Books. Vol. xxvi.
III. Pbinied Original Documents and Contemporary Publications.
A. Diplomacy and Foreign Affairs.
Baudrillart, A. (see above). (1) Rapport sur une Mission en Espagne aux Archives
d' Alcala de Heuares et de Simancas. (2) Ditto, aux Archives de Simancas (Part 111)^
Correspondances diplomatiques apres 1716. Archives des Missions Scieutifiques
et Litte'raires. 3rd ser. Vol. xv. Paris. 1889. Further correspondence after
1724 in Nouvelles Archives des M. S. et L. Vol. vi. Paris. 1896.
846 The age of Walpole and the Pelhams.
Berwick, Due de. Memoires. Coll. Petitot. Vols, lxv-vi. Paris. 1828.
Recueil des instructions donnees aax Ambassadeurs et Ministres de la France,
1648-1789. Vol. xri, 6£» (Pt. 2). (1722-93.) Espagne. By A. Morel-Fatio and
H. Leonardon. Paris. 1899.
Historical Manuscripts Commission Reports :
Townshend, Charles, Viscount. Extract from Correspondence. Rep. xi, Pt. 4.
London. 1887.
Spanish Affairs, 1738-9, etc.
Trevor, Robert. Correspondence of, with Horatio, Lord Walpole. Earl of
Buckinghamshire's Papers. Rep. xiv, Pt. 9, pp. 1-56. London. 1896.
Hare mss., pp. 239-56. Rep. xiv, Pt. 9. London. 1896.
Stirling-Home-Drummond-Moray, C. H. S. Papers, pp. 170-99. Rep. x,
App. 1. London. 1895.
Weston-Underwood. Papers of Edward Weston, pp. 199-314, 427-44, 452,
518. Rep. X, App. 1. London. 1885.
Pamphlets chiefly concerned with the Spanish War of 1739 :
For the Convention — Gordon's Appeal to the Unprejudiced concerning the
Present Discontents ; Popular Prejudices figainst the Convention with
Spain ; the Grand Question War or no War with Spain. London. 1739.
Those against are innumerable and nearly all of the same abusive and uncritical
character. Review of all that passed between 1731-9 [by W. Pulteney],
London, 1739, is typical. See as to further pamphlets and information
Boyer's Pol. State of Great Britain, Vol. lvii, London, 1739, and Hertz,
British Imperialism in the Eighteenth Century. London, 1908.
B. Home Affairs.
(1) Periodicals.
London Gazette (thrice weekly). Boyer, A. Political State of Great Britain.
Vol. VIII sqq. London. 1714 sqq. The Historical Register. 2 vols. London.
1724. The Craftsman. London. 1726-7 sqq. Gentleman's Magazine, 1738 sqq.
London. ITie Old Whig or the consistent Protestant. 2 vols. London. 1739.
For Newspapers :
Fox Bourne, H. R. English Newspapers. 2 vols. London. 1887.
(2) Memoirs, Correspondence, and Papers; chiefly unofficial.
[For Jacobite Papers, etc. see Bibliography to Chap. III.}
Ailesbury, Marquis of. Westmoreland mss. Hist. mss. Comm. Rep. x, App.
Pt. 4, pp. 29-36. London. 1885.
Bath, Marquis of. Longleat mss. Hist. mss. Comm. Rep. xv. Vol. i, pp. 244-323.
Vols. II and iii. London. 1904-8.
Bedford, John Russell, fourth Duke of. Correspondence of. Ed. Lord J. Russell.
4 vols. London. 1842.
Bolingbroke, Viscount. Works. 8 vols. London. 1809.
Buccleuch and Queensberry, first Duke of. mss. Hist. mss. Comm. Rep. xv, App.
Pt. 8. Vol. 1, pp. 361-417. London. 1897.
Carlisle, Earl of. mss. Hist. mss. Comm. Rep. xv, App. Pt. 6, pp. 1-211. London.
1897.
Charlemart, Earl of. mss. Vol. i. Hist. mss. Comm. Rep. xii, App. Pt 10
London. 1891.
Chatham Correspondence. 4 vols. Edd. W. S. Taylor and J. H. Pringle. London.
1838-40.
Bibtiography. 847
Chesterfield, PhUip Dormer Stanhope, Earl. Miscellaneous Works. [Pamphlets
etc.] Ed. M. Matz. London. 1777.
Letters to his Son. Ed. C. Strachey. 2 vols. London. 1901.
Letters to his godson and successor. Ed. Earl of Carnarvon. Oxford. 1890.
Cobbett's Parliamentary History. Vols, vii-xiv. London. 1811-2.
Cowper, EarL Coke Papers. Hist. mss. Comm. Rep. xii, App. Pt. 3, pp. 116-31.
London. 1889.
Lord Chancellor. Private Diary. (Roxburghe Club.) London. 1833.
Mary, Countess of. Diary. Ed. S. Cowper. London. 1865.
Dodington, George Bubb, first Lord Melcombe. Diary (1749-61). Ed. H. P.
Wyndham. 4th edn. London. 1823.
Du Cane, Lady. mss. Hist. mss. Comm. Rep. xv [Chiefly naval]. London. 1905.
Fortescue mss. Dropmore Papers. Hist. mss. Comm. Rep. xiu, pp. 1-142, App.
Pt. 3. Vol. I. London. 1892.
Frankland-Russell-Astley, Mrs. Hist. mss. Comm. Rep. xv, pp. 206 sqq. London.
1900.
(Glover, Richard.) Memoirs by a celebrated literary and political character
(1742-57). New edn. London. 1815.
Grenville Papers. Ed. W. J. Smith. 4 vols. London. 1852-3.
Hardwicke, Philip, first Earl of. Miscellaneous State Papers. Vol. ii. London.
1778.
Hervey, John, Lord. Memoirs of the Reign of George II to the death of Queen
Caroline. Ed. J. W. Croker. 2 vols. London. 1848.
Kenyon, Lord. mss. Hist. mss. Comm. Rep. xiv, App. Pt. 4, pp. 455-94. London.
1894.
Ketton, R. W. mss. Hist. mss. Comm. Rep. xii, App. Pt. 9, pp. 196-209.
London. 1891.
Leyborne Popham mss. Hist. mss. Comm. Rep. xv, pp. 253 sqq. London. 1899.
Lonsdale, Earl. mss. Hist. mss. Comm. Rep. xiii, App. Pt. 7, pp. 121-32. London.
1893.
Lothian, Marquess of. mss. Drury Papers. Hist. mss. Comm. Rep. xvi, pp. 148-65.
London. 1905.
Lyttelton, George, first Lord. Works. 3rd edn. London. 1776.
Mar and Kellie, Earl of. mss. Hist. mss. Comm. Rep. xvi. London. 1904.
Marchmont, ninth Earl of. Papers. 3 vols. London. 1831.
Marlborough mss. Hist. mss. Comm. Rep. vm, App. 1. London. 1881.
Montagu, Lady Mary Wortley. Letters of (1714r-27). 2 vols. London. 1861.
Onslow, Earl of. mss. Hist. mss. Comm. Rep. xiv, App. Pt. 9, pp. 450-524. London.
1895.
Pelham, Henry. Memoirs of Life of. By Arch. W. Coxe. 2 vols. London. 1829.
Pope, Alexander. Poetical Works. Ed. A. W. Ward. London. 1869.
Letters of, to Atterbury when in the Tower. Ed. J. G. Nichols. Camden
Misc. Vol. rv. London. 1859.
Letters of. Ed. M. Elwin. Vols. i-v. London. 1871.
Portland, Duke of. mss. Hist. mss. Comm. Rep. xm, App. Pt. 2. Vol. ii,
pp. 255-314, 1893 ; Rep. xv, App. vol. v, pp. 606-669, 1899 ; vols, vi and vii
(chiefly correspondence of Atterbury and Harley). 1901.
Pulteney, W. (Earl of Bath). Letters of. Mar and Kellie mss. Hist. mss. Comm.
Rep. XVI, pp. 629 sqq. London. 1904.
English Hist. Rev. xiv, pp. 318 sqq.
Rogers, J. E. Thorold. Protests of the House of Lords. 2 vols. Oxford. 1875.
Somers Tracts, the. Vol. xiii. London. 1815.
Somerset, Frances, Duchess of. Correspondence of, with Henrietta Louisa Countess
of Pomfret (1738-41). 3 vols. London. 1805.
848 The age of Walpole and the Pelhams.
Suffolk, Henrietta Howard, Countess of. Letters to and from her second husband.
George Berkeley. Ed. J. W. Croker. 2 vols. London. 1824.
Sundon, Charlotte Clayton, Lady. Letters. Ed. Mrs Thompson; 2 vols. 1847.
Swift, Jonathan, Dean of St Patrick's. Prose Works of. Ed. Temple Scott.
12 vols. London. 1908.
Townshend, Charles, Visct. mss. Hist. mss. Comm. Rep. xi, Pt. 4. London. 1887.
Waldegrave, James, Earl. Memoirs. 1764-8. London. 1821.
Walpole, Horace, fourth Earl of Orford. Letters, complete, with Bibliography.
Mrs Paget Toynbee. 16 vols. Oxford. 1903-3.
Memoirs of the Reign of King George II. Ed. Lord Holland. 3 to1s>
Loudon. 1846.
Aedes Walpolianae. London. 1752. [Description of pictures at Houghton
House.]
Walpole, Horatio, Lord. The Convention vindicated. London. 1739.
Interest of Great Britain steadily pursued. 3rd edn. London. 1743.
Answer to the later part of Bolingbroke's letters on History. London. 1763.
Memoirs of. By Archdeacon W. Coxe. 2nd edn. enlarged. London. 1808.
Walpole, Sir Robert, first Earl of Orford. A short History of the Parliament
of 1713. London. 1713. [Pamphlet.]
Report from the Committee of Secrecy. London. 1716.
Observations on the Treaty, November 9, 1729. London. 1729.
General considerations concerning alteration and improvement of Publick
Revenues ; Letter on Duties on Wine and Tobacco. London. 1733.
Some considerations concerning the Public Funds, the Public Revenues and
the Annual Supplies. London. 1736.
Memoirs of the Life and Administration of. By Archdeacon W. Coxe.
3 vols. London. 1798.
Wentworth Papers. [Correspondence, etc., of Lord Strafford, 1706-39.] Ed.
J. J. Cartwright. London. 1883.
Whitefoord, Col. C. Caleb. Papers of, 1739-1810. Ed. W. A. S. Hewins.
Oxford. 1898.
Williams, Sir C. Hanbury. Works. 3 vols. London. 1822. [Satires, etc.,
1739-57.]
IV. Secondary Works.
(1) General History of the Period.
Brosch, M. Geschichte von England. Vol. ui. (Gesch. d. europ. Staaten.)
Gotha. 1893.
Cheyney, E. P. European background of American History. New York. 1904.
Heeren, A- H. L. Versuch einer historischen Entwickelung der Entstehung und
des Wachsthums des Britischen Continental-Interesse. Hist. Werke. Vol. i.
Gottingen. 1821. English translation. Oxford. 1836.
Knight, Charles. Pictorial History of England. Vol. iv. London. 1841.
Leadam, I. S. Political History of England (1702-60). Vol. ix. London. 1909.
Lecky, W. E. H. History of England in Eighteenth Century. Vols. i-ui. London.
1897-9. Vol. VII, chap. xxi. London. 1899.
Michael, W. Englische Geschichte im Achtzehnten Jahrhundert. Vol. i.
Hamburg and Leipzig. 1896.
Ranke, L. von. Englische Geschichte vornehmlich in sechzehnten und siebzehnten
Jahrhundert. Sammtl. Werke, Vol. vu. Leipzig. 1868. Eng. trans.
Vol. V. Oxford. 1876.
Rapin, Thoyras de. History of England. The Continuation by N. Tindal to 1728.
2 vols. London. 1752.
Bibliography. 849
Schlosser, F. C. History of the Eighteenth Century. English translation by
D. Davison. Vols. i-n. London. 1843.
Smollett, T. History of England, 1688-1760. Vols. i-n. London. 1790. [Con-
tinuation of Hume.]
Stanhope, Philip H., fifth Earl. History of England, 1713-83. 7 vols. London. 1868.
(2) Diplomacy (chiefly as to Relations of Spain and England).
[See also Bibliographies of Chaps. Ill and IV. 1
Armstrong, E. Elizabeth Farnese. London. 1892.
Baudrillart, A. Philippe V et la cour de France. Vols, in-iv. Paris. 1893.
Capeiigue, J. B. H. R. Diplomatie de la France et de I'Espagne. Paris. 1846.
Clarke, E. Letters concerning the Spanish nation during 1760-1. London. 1763.
Coquelle, P. Les Projets de Descente en Angleterre. Paris. 1902. [Docs.]
Coxe, Archdeacon W. History of the Bourbon Kings of Spain (1700-88). 3 vols.
London. 1813-5.
Filon, C. A. D. L' Alliance Anglaise aux dix-huitieme siecle 1713-40. Acade'mie
des Sciences Morales et Politiques. Paris. 1860.
Hertz, G. B. British Imperialism in the Eighteenth Century. London. 1908.
Laughton, Sir J. K. Jenkins' Ear. English Hist. Review. Vol. iv, pp. 741-9.
London. 1889.
Legrelle, A. La Diplomatie Francaise et la Succession d'Espagne. Vol. vi.
(1710-26.) Second edn. Brain'e-le-Comte. 1899.
Seeley, Sir J. The House of Bourbon. English Hist. Review. Vol. i, pp. 86 sqq.
Loudon. 1886.
Temperley, H. W. V. The causes of the War of Jenkins' Ear. Trans. Royal
Hist. Society. London. 1909.
Williams, B. The Foreign Policy of England under Walpole. English Historical
Review, xv, 251, 479, 665 ; xvi, 67, 308, 439. [Deals only with the period
1721-31.]
(3) Biographical and Miscellaneous.
[See also III B 2 ante.'\
Atterbury, Francis, Bishop of Rochester. Life. By Canon H. C. Beeching.
London. 1909. [Docs.]
Besant, Sir Walter. London in the Eighteenth Century. London. 1902.
Bolingbroke, Henry St John, Viscount. Life. By T. Macknight. London. 1863.
Life and Times. By W. Sichel. London. 1902. [Docs.]
Carteret, John, Lord Granville. Life. By A. Ballantyue. London. 1887.
Chatham, William Pitt, Earl. Leben. ByA. Ruville. 3 vols. Stuttgart and Berlin.
1905. English translation. 3 vols. London. 1907.
Life. By F. Thackeray. 2 vols. London. 1828. [Docs.]
Chesterfield, Philip D. Stanhope, fourth Earl. Life. W.Ernst. London. 1893. [Docs]
Hardwicke, Philip, Lord. Life. By G. Harris. 3 vols. London. 1847. [Docs,]
Harley, Robert, Earl of Oxford. Life. By E. S. Roscoe. London. 1902.
Lloyd, E. M. The raising of the Highland Regiments in 1767. English Historical
Review, xvii, pp. 452 sqq.
Lyttelton, George, 1st Lord. Life. By Sir R. J. Phillimore. London. 1845. [Docs.]
Nugent, Robert, Earl. Memoirs of (1741-60). By C. Nugent. London. 1898.
Shelburne, Marquis of Lansdowne. Life. By Lord E. Fitzmaurice. Vol. i. London.
1875. [Docs.]
Swift, Jonathan, Dean of St Patrick's. By Sir H. Craik. 2 vols. London. 1894.
Walpole, Sir Robert, first Earl of Orford. By A. C. Ewald. London. 1878.
By J. Morley. (Twelve English Statesmen.) London. 1889.
Ward, A. W. Great Britain and Hanover. Oxford. 1899.
C. M. H. VI. CH. II. 64
860 I'he age of Walpole and the Pelhams.
(4) Works illustrative of the History of Party Government and
Constitutional Theory.
Blackstone, Sir Wm. Commentaries on the Laws of England. Book I. Vol. i.
9th edn. Ed. R. Burn. London. 1783.
Blauveltj Mary T. Development of Cabinet Government. New York. 1902.
Brosch, M. Bolingbroke und die Whigs und Tories seiner Zeit. Frankfort. 1883.
Burnet, Gilbert (Bishop of Salisbury). Memorial to Princess Sophia. A delineation
of the constitution and policy of England. London. 1815.
Cowper, Earl, Lord Chancellor. An Impartial History of Parties. Memoir
delivered to George I on his accession. In Campbell's Lives of the Chancellors.
pp. 921-9. London. 1846.
Kent, C. B. Roylance. Early History of the Tories to 1702. London. 1909.
[Gives origin of Tory ideas.]
Montesquieu, Baron. L'Esprit des Lois. Book xi. Engl. tr. Vol. i. London. 1878.
Pike, L. O. Constitutional History of the House of Lords. London. 1894.
Political Disquisitions. 2 vols. London. 1774.
Porritt, E. and A. G. The Unreformed House of Commons. 2 vols. London. 1903.
Rapin, Thoyras de. Dissertation sur les Whigs et les Torys. The Hague. 1717. ■
Redlich, J. Procedure of the House of Commons. Translated from the German.
Ed. by Sir Courtenay Ilbert. 3 vols. London. 1908.
Todd, Alpheus. Parliamentary Government. Ed. Sir S. Walpole. 2 vols. London.
1892.
Torrens, W. M. History of Cabinets. 2 vols. London. 1894.
Wilkins, W. W. Political Ballads of Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries. 2 vols.
London. 1860.
Williams, B. Newcastle and the election of 1734. English Hist. Rev. Vol. xn,
pp. 448 sqq.
Winstanley, D. A. George HI and, his first Cabinet. English Historical Review.
Vol. XVII, pp. 678 sqq.
(6) Financial, Economic and Colonial.
[See also Bibliography of Chap. VI."}
American Manuscripts in Royal Inst, of Great Britain. Hist. mss. Comm. Rep. xv.
Vol. I. London. 1904.
Ashley, W. J. Surveys Historic and Economic. Pp. 268-308. New York. 1900.
Beer, G. L. Commercial Policy of England towards the American Colonies. New
York. 1893.
British Colonial Policy, 1754-65. New York. 1907.
Bourne, E. G, Spain in America. New York. 1904.
Brisco, N. A. Economic Policy of Robert Walpole. Columbia University Press.
New York. 1907.
Brougham, H., Lord. Colonial Policy of the European Powers. 2 vols. Edinburgh.
1803.
Chalmers, G. Estimate of the comparative strength of Great Britain and losses of
her trade. London. 1782.
Channing, E. History of the United States, 1660-1760. Vol. ii. New York. 1908.
Defoe, Daniel. The Complete English Tradesman. London. 1732.
An humble Proposal to the People of England for the encrease of their Trade.
London. 1729.
Plan ofthe English Commerce. London. 1737. Extracts in J. R. McCuUoch's
Select Tracts on Commerce. Loudon. 1859.
Davis. The Currency and Provincial Politics. Publications of Colonial Soc. of
Massachusetts. Vol. vi. Boston. 1900.
Dowell, S. History of Taxation. 4 vols. London. 1884.
Bibliography. 851
Edwards, Bryan. History Civil and Commercial of British Colonies in West Indies.
6 vols. London. 1849.
Franklin, Benjamin. The interest of Great Britain considered with regard to her
Colonies. London. 1761.
Gee, Joshua. The Trade and Navigation of Great Britain Considered [puhlished
1729]. Newedn. London. 1767.
Hertz, G. B. The old Colonial System. Manchester. 1906.
Hill, W. Colonial Tariifs. Quarterly Journal of Economics, vii, 78 sq.
Molasses Act of 1733. Parliamentary History, viii, 918, 992-1002, 1196-1200,
1261-66. London. 1811.
Moses, B. South America on the Eve of Emancipation. New York. 1908.
Pamphlets on British and West Indian aspects of the question.
A — r — Z — ^h. Considerations on the Dispute now before the Commons.
London. 1731.
Comparison between British Sugar Colonies and New England as they relate to
the interest of Great Britain. London. 1732.
(Ashley, John.) Sugar Trade with incumbrances thereon laid open. London. 1734.
Letter to the West India Merchants by a Fisherman. London. 1761. [On
the New England side.]
Pitt, WiUiam, Earl of Chatham. Correspondence with Colonial Governors. Ed.
Miss Kemball. London. 1907.
and the representation of the Colonies in the Imperial Parliament. By
B. Williams. Eng. Hist. Bev. Vol. xxn, pp. 756-8. London. 1907.
SchmoUer, G. The Mercantile System. Translated. New York. 1902.
Sinclair, Sir John. History of the Public Revenue. 3 vols. London. 1803.
Smith, Adam. Wealth of Nations. Vol. ii. Bk. rv, chap. vii. Ed. E. Cannan.
London. 1904.
Somers Tracts. 13 vols. London. 1809-16.
Townshend hss. [full on American affairs]. Hist. mss. Comm. Rep. xi, Pt. 4.
London. 1887.
Tucker, Josiah. Four Tracts on Political and Commercial Subjects. Gloucester. 1774.
Williams, W. M. J. The King's Revenue. London. 1908.
Zimmermann, A. Die Europaischen Kolonien. Berlin. 1896-1901.
(2) RELIGIOUS HISTORY.
I. BiBLIOORAPHIES.
Bibliography of the Works of John and Charles Wesley, arranged in chronological
order, with notes. By R. Green. London. 1896. New edn. 1906.
A record of Methodist Literature, in two parts. By G. Osbom. London. 1869.
Anti-Methodist Publications during the Eighteenth Century, with notes. Being a
list of all known books and pamphlets written in opposition to the Methodist
Revival during the life of Wesley. By B. Green. London. 1902.
Useful short Bibliographical notes will be found in Overton and Relton's History
of the English Church, 1714-1800. London. 1906. For fuUer lists see Sir Leslie
Stephen's Life and Thought in Eighteenth Century. Vol. i. London. 1902.
II. Manuscripts.
There are a number of manuscripts at the British Museum dealing with John
Wesley, most of which have been published. Further material is also to be found
in the City Road Chapel Museum and much information may be expected from the
still unpublished parts of Wesley's journal and the various other ms. sources still in
private hands or in the possession of societies. Much valuable material has, of late,
been published by the Wesley Historical Society.
CH. II. 64 — 2
852 The age of Walpole and the Pelhams.
L. Tyerman's laborious volumes deal with the whole life of Wesley and of his
family and friends, often from unpublished materials. Unfortunately his critical
ability was by no means equal to his erudition. Thus, the history of John
Wesley's marriage with Mrs Vazeille and of their subsequent relations is not treated
by him with the requisite impartiality. Dr A. W. Stocks, himself a descendant
of the Vazeille family, has inherited relics and traditions from them which show
Mrs Vazeille's side of the question. He also possesses and has published in the Critic,
N.S., Vol. IV, No. 86, of August 16, 1886, New York, U.S.A., an important letter from
Mr Antony Vazeille (Mrs Vazeille's first husband) to his wife, which shows their
harmonious relations. From another point of view, a valuable corrective of Tyerman
is to be found in Hetty Wesley, by A. T. Quiller-Couch, London, 1908, a living if
not always a too favourable presentment of the Wesley Family.
The notes and materials for a biography of William Law, pi-ivately printed —
each copy with ms. notes by the author Christopher Walton — still await publication.
Materials for a biogi-aphy of Archbishop Wake exist at Christ Church, Oxford.
In general, nothing but the publication of diocesan records alone will throw light
on the much debated question of parochial and clerical activity in this age. A good
deal can be inferred from the charges of Bishops like Wake, Butler, and Gibson,
delivered to the clergy of their dioceses ; but the history of the Establishment
during this period, and of Nonconformist bodies other than Wesleyan, can hardly be
accurately written without a much more extensive research into unpublished materials
than has yet been attempted. The first two numbers of the Transactions of the
Baptist Historical Society— just published — reveal valuable soui-ces of new materials.
lU. The Established Cbubcb.
(A) Papers and Works illustrative of General Conditions.
Butler, Joseph, Bishop of Durham. Stanhope Memorials of. Ed. W. M. Egglestone.
London. 1878.
Charge to Clergy of Diocese of Durham. London. 1751.
Gibson, Edmund, Bishop of London. Charges to Clergy of Lincoln. London. 1717.
Charges to the Clergy of London (1730). London. 1731 ; to the same
(1741-2). London. 1742.
Some account of. By R. Smalbroke. London. 1749.
Hearne, Thomas. Works. Ed. P. Bliss. 3 vols. London. 1837.
Hurd, Richard, Bishop of Worcester. Correspondence with Bishop Warburton.
London. 1809.
Memoirs of Life and Writings. By F. Kilvert. London. 1742.
Complete Works. London. 1811.
Lowth, Robert, Bishop of London. Letter to Warburton. 4th edn. London. 1766..
Memoirs of Life and Writings. By R. Laden. London. 1787.
Potter, John, Archbishop of Canterbury. Works. London. 1763.
Pyle, Dr E. Memoirs of a royal Chaplain, 1729-63. By A. Hartshorne. London.
1905.
Romaine, W. Life. By W. B. Cadogan. London. 1796.
Seeker, 'rhomas, Archbishop of Canterbury. Works. (With Life.) 6 vols. London.
1826.
Review of life and character. By Bishop Poi-teus. London. 1797.
Sherlock, Thomas, Bishop of London. Works, with some account of his Life.
By T. S. Hughes. 6 vols. London. 1830.
Somers Tracts. Vol. xiii. London. 1812.
Wake, William, Archbishop of Canterbury. State of English Church in Councils,
Synods, Convocations, etc. London. 1703.
charge to the Clergy of Lincoln (1709). London. 1710.
Bibliography. 853
Walker;, S. Life of. By E. Sidney. London. 1836.
Wilson, Thomas, Bishop of Sodor and Man. Life and Works. By C. Cruttwell.
London. 1781.
Life. By H. Stowell. London. 1879. [First published 1788.]
Life and Works. By J. Keble. 7 vols. (Library of Anglo-Catholic Theology.)
London. 1863.
Woodward, J. Rise and Progress of the Religious Societies. 2nd edn. London. 1698.
(B) Works by Churchmen dealing with religioui controvert and thoughts.
Berkeley, George, Bishop of Cloyne. Works and Life. Ed. A. C. Fraser. 4 vols.
Oxford. 1901.
Butler, Joseph, Bishop of Durham. Works. Ed. J. H. Bernard. 2 vols. London.
1900.
Remains hitherto unpublished. London. 1883.
Hervey, J. Meditations and Contemplations. Liverpool. 1814. With Memoir by
D. M-'Nicoll. London. 1856.
Original Letters. Scarborough. 1829.
Herveiana: sketches of life and writings of J. H. By J. Cole. 2 pts.
Scarborough. 1822-3.
Hoadly, Benjamin, Bishop of Winchester. Works. 3 vols. London. 1773.
Answer to Convocation. London. 1718.
Warburton, William, Bishop of Gloucester. Works. London. 1811.
Byrom, John. Poems. Ed. A. W. Ward. 2 vols. Chetham Soo. Manchester. 1896.
Law, Waiiam. Works. 9 vols. London. 1763-76.
Ed. G. B. M[organ]. 9 vols. Privately printed. Canterbury. 1892-3.
Swift, Jonathan, Dean of St Patrick's. Prose Works. Ed. Temple Scott. Loudou.
1908.
Whiston, William. Essays. London. 1713.
(C) Constructive Deism.
Addison, J. Evidences of the Christian Religion. London. 1721.
Berkeley, George, Bishop of Cloyne. Alciphron, or The Minute Philosopher.
London. 1732.
Leland, John. Answer to Morgan. London. 1737.
Answer to Tindal. London. 1740.
Locke, John. Works. 12th edn. London. 1824.
Morgan, Thomas. The Moral Philosopher. Pts. i-iii. London. 1737-40.
Tindal, M. Christianity as old as the Creation. London. 1730. ^
Reply to. By W. Law. Works. London. 1762.
, Toland, J. J. Christianity not mysterious. London. 1696.
Vindicius Liberius. London. 1700.
Letters to Serena. London. 1704.
Adeisidaemon. London. 1709.
NazarenuB, London. 1718.
Tetradymus; Pantheisticon. London. 1720.
(D) Critical Deism.
Blount, Charles. Anima Mundi. London. 1678-9.
ApoUonius Tyanaeus. London. 1680.
Oracles of Reason. London. 1693.
854 The age of Walpole and the Pelhams.
Bolingbroke, Henry St John, Viscount. Works. 8 vols. London. 1809.
Collins, Anthony. Essay on Reason. London. 1707.
Priestcraft in Perfection. London. 1709.
Discourse on Freethinking. London. 1713 ; Reply to above Remarks on
Phileleutherus Lipsiensis. [Richard Bentley.] London. 1713. Part m. 1743.
Grounds and reasons of Christian Religion. London. 1724.
Scheme of Literal Prophecy. London. 1727.
Hume, David. Philosophical Works. Edd. T. H. Green andT. H. Grose. Oxford.
1874^.
Middleton, Conyers. Miscellaneous Works. London. 1766.
Shaftesbury, A. A. Cooper, third Earl of. Life, Unpublished Letters, and Philo-
sophical Regimen of. Ed. B. Rand. London. 1900.
rV. Secondabt Works.
(A) General Histories of the Established Church and Dissenting Bodies,
Abbey, C. J. and Overton, J. H. The English Church and its Bishops, 1700-1800.
2 vols. London. 1887.
Bogue, D. and J. Bennett. History of Dissenters, 1688-1808. 2 vols. London. 1833.
Dale, R. W. History of Congregationalism in England. London. 1908.
Lathbury, T. History of the Convocation of the Church of England. London. 1842.
Molesworth, Canon W. N. History of the Church of England from 1660. London.
1882.
New^ History of Methodism. Edd. W. J. Townsend, H. B. Workman, G. Fayre.
2 vols. London. 1909.
Overton, Canon J. H. The English Church in the Eighteenth Century; 2 vols.
London. 1878. Abridged edn. London. 1887.
and F. Relton. The English Church (1714^-1800). London. 1906.
Simon, J. S. Revival of Religion in England in the Eighteenth Century. London.
1907.
Skeats, H. S. History of the Free Churches. Ed. S. Miall. London. 1894,
Stevens, A. Histoi-y of Methodism. 2 vols. London. 1873-4.
Stoughton, J. Religion in England, 1702-1800. London. 1878.
(B) Works dealing with the History of Thought and Controversy.
Atterbury, Francis, Bishop of Rochester. Life. By F. Waiiams. [Docs.] 2 vols.
London. 1869.
Berkeley, George, Bishop of Cloyne. Life. By A. C. Eraser. London. 1901.
Butler, Joseph, Bishop of Durham, Studies subsidiary to. By W. E. Gladstone.
Oxford. 1896.
T. Lorenz. Beitrag zur Lebensgeschichte von J. B. Berlin. 1900.
Weitere Beitrage zur Lebensgeschichte in den Jahren 1731-3. Berlin. 1901.
Farrar, H. S. Critical History of Free Thought. London. 1862.
Hunt, J. History of Religious Thought in England. 3 vols. London. 1870.
Hutton, W. H. Some Unpublished Letters of Nonjurors. Athenaeum, May 8, 1909.
Lathbury, T. History of the Non-Jurors. London. 1845.
Law, William. Life and Opinions of. Canon Overton. London. 1881.
Memorials of Birthplace and Residence. By "G. Moreton." London. 1895.
Lechler, G. V. Geschichte des Englischen Deism us. 2 Bde. Stuttgart and
Tubingen. 1841.
MandeviUe, B. Works. London. 1772.
B. de M.'s Bienenfabel. By P. Goldbach. Halle. 1889. [Includes a Biblio-
graphy.]-
Bibliography. 855
Overtonj Canon J. H. The Non-Jurors. London. 1902.
Pattison, Mark. Essays. Ed. H. Nettleship. 2 vols. Oxford. 1889.*
Robertson^ J. M. Pioneer Humanists. London. 1907.
Stephen, Sir Leslie. History of English Thought in the Eighteenth Century.
2 vols. London. 1902.
Wake, Archbishop. By J. H. Overton. Lincoln Diocesan Magazine. Lincoln.
1891.
and the Project of Union with the Gallican Church. By J, H. Lupton. London.
1896.
(C) Works exhibiting social conditions.
Ashton, J. The Fleet — its River, Prison, and Marriages. Loudon. 1888.
History of English Lotteries. London. 1893.
Brown, J. Estimate of the manners and principles of the times. 2 vols. London.
1757.
Thoughts on Civil Liberty, licentiousness and faction. Newcastle. 1765.
Buckle, H. T. Introduction to Histoiy of Civilisation in England. Ed. J, M.
Robertson. London. 1904.
Conway, B. K. History of English Philanthropy. London. 1906.
Defoe, D. Tour through the whole island of Great Britain. 4 vols. London. 1778.
[1st edn. 1724.]
Kalm, Pehr. Visit to England. Translated by Joseph Lucas. London. 1892.
Roberts, G. Social History of the people of tiie Southern Counties in England in
past Centuries. London. 1856.
Rogers, Thorold. Six Centuries of Work and Wages. London. 1889.
Saussure, C. de. Letters of. A Foreign View of England under George I and II.
English Translation : London. 1902.
Sydney, W. C. England and the English in the Eighteenth Century. 2 vols.
London. 1892.
Voltaire, F. M. A. de. Letters concerning England. English Translation : London.
1733.
Visit to England, 1726-9. By A. Ballantyne. London. 1893.
Montesquieu and Rousseau in England. By J. Churton Collins. London.
1908.
Watson, Bishop, Anecdotes of Life of. By his son. 2 vols. London. 1818.
Webb, S. and B. English Local Government (1688-1834). The Parish and the
County. 3 vols. London. 1906-8.
Wendeborn, G. F. A. Reise durch einige westlichen und sudlichen Provinzen
Englands. 2 vols. Hamburg. 1793.
Wright, T. Caricature History of the Georges. London. 1877.
(D) Works dealing with missionary effort etc.
Anderson, J. S. M. History of Church of England in Colonies and Foreign
Dependencies of the British Empire. 3 vols. London. 1856.
Canton, W. History of British and Foreign Bible Society. 2 vols. London. 1904.
Cross, A. L. The Anglican Episcopate and the American Colonies. Harvard Hist.
Studies. Vol. ix. London. 1896.
Society for Propagation of Gospel. Digest of Records, 1701-1892. London. 1892.
Warneck, G. History of the Protestant Missions. Trans, by G. Robson. Edinburgh
and London. 1906.
Whites, W. Memoirs of Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States. Ed.
B. F. de Costa. London. 1880.
856 The age of Walpole and the Pelhams.
(E) The Wesleyan and Welsh Revivals.
(a) General.
Benson, J. Defence of the Methodists. London. 1793.
Apology for the Methodists. London. 1801.
Crowther, J. A Portraiture of Methodism. London. 181.5.
Cudworth, W. Whitebrook, J. C. London. 1906. [A biography and vindication
with reference to strictures of John Wesley.]
Dartmouth mss. Hist, mss, Comm. Rep. xv. App. Pt. 1. Vol. iii. [Contains
correspondence of John Newton.] London. 1896.
FitzGeraldj W. B. The Roots of Methodism. (Handbook for the Wesley Guild.)
London. 1903.
Fletcher, J. W., of Madeley. Works. 8 vols. London. 1836.
Wesley's Designated Successor. Life. By L. Tyerman. 1882. [Docs.]
Hall, Joseph. Memorials of Wesleyan Methodist Ministers and yearly death-roll,
1777-1840. London. 1876.
Harris, Howell. Memoirs of, with account of Calvinistic Methodists in Wales. By
J. Bulmer. Haverfordwest. 1824.
Hervey, James. Theron and Aspasio. Wesley's Remarks on, with Hervey's Reply.
London. 1766.
Life. By H. J. Hughes. London. 1892.
Huntingdon, Selina, Countess of. Two letters, pp. 209-11. In mss. Mrs Frankland-
Russell-Astley. Hist. mss. Comm. Rep. xv. London. 1900.
Life and Times of. By a member of the Houses of Shirley and Hastings.
2 vols. London. 1844.
Jackson, T. Early Methodist Preachers. 6 vols. London. 1866 ; abridged edition
of this, with notes, entitled Wesley's Veterans. By J. "Telford. London.
[Autobiographies of Wesley's principal helpers.] In the press.
Myles, W. Chronological History of the People called Methodists. London. 1813.
Nightingale, A. A Portraiture of Methodism. London. 1807.
Nightingale v. Stockdale. Report of Trial for Libel in connection with
above. By Bartrum. London. 1809.
Stevens, A. B. History of Methodism. 3 vols. London. 1899.
Telford, J. Popular History of Methodism. London. 1899.
Warren and Stephens. Chronicles of Methodism. London. 1827.
Wesley, the Family of. Byrom and the Wesleys. By E. Hoole. London. 1864.
Hetty Wesley. By A. T. Quiller-Couch. London. 1908.
■ Memoirs of. By Adam Clarke. London. 1823.
Memorials of the Wesley Family. By G. J. Stevenson. London. 1876.
Oglethorpe and the Wesleys in America. By E. Hoole. Loudon. 1863.
The Wesleys in Lincolnshire. By G. Lester. London. 1890.
Wesley, Charles. Early JournaL . Ed. by J. Telford. {To be published shortly.)
Journal and Poetry of. By T. Jackson. London. 1862.
Life. By T. Jackson. 2 vols. London. 1841 ; abridged edn. 2 vols.
London. 1848. [Docs.]
Life. By J. Telford. London. 1900.
and John. Poetical Works. Ed. G. Osborn. London. 1868.
Wesley, John. Conference Minutes: Wesleyan. Vol. i. (1744-98.) London.
1862.
Correspondence of;, with S. Walker. Saturday Review, March 28. London.
1891.
Historical Society Publications. London. 1896 sqq.
Hymns, translation of German. By J. W. Ed. J. T. Hatfield. London. 1896.
Bibliography. 857
Wesley, John. Works, etc. ; City Road Chapel and its Associations. By
G. J. Stevenson. London. 1873.
Journal, October 14, 1735-7. Ed. Bishop E. R. Hendrix. New Orleans.
1901.
Journal. 4 vols. London. 1907. Standard edition. 6 vols. (In process
of publication.)
Original letters of J. W. and his friends. Ed. J. Priestley. Birmingham.
1791.
Works. 32 vols. Bristol. 1771-4; 16 vols. London. 1866.
(|3) Centenary studies and publications.
Homes, Haunts and friends of J. W. Centenary number of the Methodist Recorder.
London. 1891.
Wesley Centenary Handbook, hymns, service, etc. London. 1891.
Wesley, the Living. By J. H. Rigg. Centenary edn. London. 1891. Xew
edu. London. 1905.
The Man, his Teaching, and his Work. [Addresses and Sermons delivered in
commemoration of the Centenary.] London. 1891.
Wesleyan studies by various writers from unpublished sources. London. 1903.
Wesley, John, and his successors. Centenary memorial. London. 1891.
(y) Biographies etc.
Wesley, John, Essai dogmatique sur. By M. Haemmerlin. Colmar. 1857.
J. W., and George Whitefield in Scotland. By D. Butler. Edinburgh. 1898.
J. W. and the Evangelical Reaction of the Eighteenth Century. By Julia
Wedgewood. London. 1870.
J. W.'s place in Church History. By D. O. Urlin. Edinburgh. 1870.
Life. By John Hampson. 3 vols. London. 1791.
Life. By Canon J. H. Overton. London. 1891.
Life. By F. J. Snell. Edinburgh. 1900.
■ Life. By J. Telford. New edn. London. 1906.
Life. By J. Whitehead. 2 vols. London. 1793-6.
Life and Times. By L. Tyerman. 3 vols. London. 1870. [Docs.]
Life and Works, By Matthieu Lelievre. English Translation. Loudon. 1900.
Life of, and use and progress of Methodism. By R. Southey. 3rd edn.
A.Knox. NotesbyS.T. Coleridge. Ed. C. C. Southey. 2 vols. London. 1846.
Observations on Southey's Life of J. W. By R Watson. London. 1820.
The Oxford Methodists. By L. Tyerman. London. 1873. [Docs.]
Wesley et ses rapports avec les Fran^ais. By E. Gounelle. Paris. 1898.
Wesley, Samuel the elder. Life and Times of. By L. Tyerman. London. 1866.
Susanna. Life. By J. Kirk. London. 1864.
^ Life. By Eliza Clarke. London. 1886.
Whitefield, George. Account of. Gentleman's Magazine, pp. 160 sqq. London.
1734.
Eighteen Sermons. Ed A. Gifford. London. 1871.
Farewell Sermon at Moorfield, August 30, 1769. London. 1769.
Journals, with appreciations. Ed. W. Wale. London. 1905.
Life. By L. Tyerman. 2 vols. London. 1876. [Docs.]
■ Memoirs of the Life of. By J. Gillies. London. 1773. [Includes letters
from John Wesley.]
Williams, H. W. Constitution and Polity of the Wesleyan Methodist Church.
New edn. By D. J. Waller. London. 1898.
858
CHAPTEK III.
JACOBITISM AND THE UNION.
A Bibliography of Jacobite history is appended to C. Sanford Terry's The
Rising of 1745 (new edn. 1903).
I. MANUSCRIPTS.
In the P.R.O. are forty-six volumes of miscellaneous State Papers (Scotland),
November, 1688 — December 16, 1760; three volumes of "Church Books (Scotland),"
May, 1724— May, 1760; eleven volumes of "Letter Book (Scotland)," September 8,
1713 — May 7, 1725 ; twenty-eight volumes of " Warrant Book (Scotland)," August 15,
1670 — September 14,, 1714, and seven volumes of "Scottish Warrants," 1711-65.
. Besides the S.P., France, Spain, Sicily and Naples, Rome, Newsletters, and
Foreign Entry Books, there are among the S.P., Tuscany, nine volumes of John
Walton's despatches, 1730-67, and thirty-three volumes of Sir Horace Mann's
despatches, 1737-79.
In the General Register House, Edinburgh, are several volumes of manuscripts
relating to forfeited Jacobite estates, military orders and letters relating to the'
risings of 1715 and 1745 (State Papers, 338-66).
The British Museum contains a large and miscellaneous collection of Jacobite
materials, chieily among the Addit., Egerton,' Gualterio, Hardwicke, Newcastle,
and Stowe mss. See a brief catalogue of them in C. Sanford Terry's Rising of 1745
(new edn. 1903, p. 306).
The Royal Library at Windsor Castle contains the large collection of Stuart
Papers. 'They have been calendared to February, 1717, by F. H. Blackburne
Daniell, for the Historical Manuscripts Commission (3 vols. London. 1902, 1904,
1907). The following volumes published by the Commission locate or print family
archives of the post-Union and Jacobite period : Report i (1870) ; Rept. n (1871) ;
Rept. Ill (1872) ; Rept. iv (1874) ; Rept. v (1876) ; Rept. vi (1877) ; Rept. vn (1879) ;
Rept. vm (1881) ; Rept. ix (1884) ; Rept. x, Pt. i (1886), Pt. iv (1885), Pt. vi
(1887) ; Rept. XI, Pt. iv (1887), Pt. vii (1888) ; Rept. xii, Pt. viii (1891) ; Rept. xiii,
Pt. vi (1893), Pt. vii (1893) ; Rept. xiv, Pt. iii (1894), Pt. iv (1894), Pt. ix (1895) ;
Rept. XV, Pt. ii (1897), Pt. iv (1897), Pt. vi (1897); Portland mss. vol. v (1899);
Various Collections, vols, i, ii (1901-3) ; Wedderburn mss. (1902) ; Mar and Kellie
mss. (1904); Lady Du Cane's mss. (1905). Sir William Fraser's reports upon the
archives of Scottish families must also be noted.
In the French Archives des Affaires ^l^trangeres there is much material bearing
upon Jacobite project? and enterprises, 1707-60 : in particular in Memoires et
Documents, Angleterre, tom. 24, 26, 62-4, 75-91, 93 ; ditto, Espagne, 238, 344 ;
Correspondance Politique, Angleterre, 211-38, 241-3, 248-60, 262, 258, 260-4,
270-4, 279, 280, 283-5, 290, 294, 328, 332, 334, 338, 339, 344, 346, 349-51, 363,
354, 360, 364, 375-7, 380, 382-91, 417, 418, 420-2, 426, 441, 442 ; ditto (Supple'-
ment), Angleterre, 3-6, 7, 10.
Bibliography. 859
The Spanish Archivo General de Simancas contains the correspondence of the
Marqufe de Villamayor with Cardinal Alberoni, 17l7-9j of Cardinal Alberoni with
the Marques de San Felipe, 1717-9, of the Marques Berrety Landy with Cardinal
Alberoni, 1716-7, and of the Marques de Monteleon with Cardinal Alberoni,
1717-9.
The relations of Charles XIl of Sweden with the Jacobites are illuminated by
the documents preserved in the Swedish Riksarkiv at Stockholm. The corre-
spondence of Count Karl Gyllenborg, Swedish Minister at London, with Baron von
Miillem, Minister of Foreign Affairs, February 26, 1716 — September 5, I7l7, and
the letters of Baron Erik Sparre, Swedish Minister at Paris, to Gyllenborg, July 1,
1716 — March 30, 1716, are among the Diplomatica Anglica. Sparre's correspondence
with Charles XII and von Miillem, July 11, 1716 — ^November 8, I7l7, is among the
Diplomatica Gallica. The Diplomatica HoUandica contain letters and documents
relating to the arrest of Gyllenborg and Gortz, and the latter's letters written
from prison at Aruhem in 1717 (published by T. Westrin in Historisk Tidsskrift,
vol. xvm, pp. 135-74. Stockholm. 1898). Gortz's letters to Charles XII,
November 4, 1716 — ^November 16, I7l7, are in a separate volume.
II. CONTEMPORARY MATERIALS.
Historical Papers relating to the Jacobite Period, 1699-1760. Ed. J. AUardyce.
2 vols. (New Spalding Club.) Aberdeen. 1895-6.
Journal and Memoirs of the Marquis d'Argenson, 1694-1767. Ed. K. Wormeley.
London. 1902.
Jacobite Correspondence of the AthoU Family during the Rebellion, 1745-6.
(Abbotsford Club.) Edinburgh. 1840.
Chronicles of the Families of Atholl and TuUibardine. Collected and arranged by
John seventh Duke of Atholl, K.T 4 vols. Edinburgh. 1896.
Berwick, James Duke of. Memoires ecrits par lui-meme, avec une suite abr^gee
depuis 1716 jusqu'a sa mort en 1734. 2 vols. Paris. 1778.
Boston, Thomas. A general Account of my Life. London. 1908.
Broglie, J. V. A., Due de. Le Secret du Roi : Correspondance secrete de Louis XV
avec ses Agents diplomatiques, 1752-74. 2 vols. 4th edn. Paris. 1888.
Burt, Edward. Letters from a Gentleman in the North of Scotland. Fifth edn.
2 vols. London. IBIB.
Cameron, Alan. Narrative : the End of the '16. Ed. C. Sanford Terry. Scott.
Hist. Review. VoL v. Glasgow. 1908.
State Papers and Letters addressed to William Carstares. Ed. Joseph M'Cormick.
Edinburgh. 1774.
Les derniers Stuarts a Saint-Germain-en-Laye. Documents inedits et authentiques
puises aux Archives publiques et privees. Ed. Marquise Campana de Cavelli.
2 vols. Paris. 1871.
Jacobite Memoirs of the Rebellion of 1746. Ed. Robert Chambers. Edinbiu-gh.
1834.
A full Collection of all the Proclamations and Orders published by the Authority of
Charles Prince of Wales since his arrival in Edinburgh the . I7th day of
September till the 16th of October 1746. 2 pts. Glasgow. 1746-6.
Memoirs of the Life of Sir John Clerk of Penicuik. Ed. John M. Gray. (Scottish
History Society.) Edinburgh. 1892.
The Cochrane Correspondence regarding the Affairs of Glasgow, 1746-6. Ed.
James Dennistoon. (Maitland Club.) Glasgow. 1836.
Colin, J. Louis XV et les Jacobites : Le Projet de D^barquement en Angleterre
de 1743-4. Paris. 1901.
860 Jacobitism and the Union.
The Report of the Proceedings and Opinion of the Board of General Officers on
their Examination into the Conduct of Sir John Cope. London. 1749.
Cottiuj P. Un Proteg^ de Bachaumont : CoiTespondance inedite du Marqais
d':6guilles, 1745-8. Paris. 1887.
Culloden Papers : comprising an extensive and interesting Correspondence from the
year 1625 to 1748. London. 1816.
The Loch Lomond Expedition, 1715. Ed. James Dennistoun. Glasgow. 1834.
Tbe Jacobite Attempt of 1719. Ed. William K. Dickson. (Scottish History
Society.) Edinburgh. 1895.
Drummond, John. Memoirs of Sir Ewen Cameron of Locheill. (Abbotsford Club.)
Edinburgh. 1842.
Elcho, David Lord. A short Account of the Affairs of Scotland in the Years 1744,
1745, 1746. Ed. the Hon. Evan Charteris. Edinburgh. 1907.
Forbes, Bishop Robert. The Lyon in Mourning. Ed. Henry Paton. 3 vols.
(Scottish History Society.) Edinburgh. 1895-6.
The Gentleman's Magazine. Vols, xv, xvi. London. 1745-6.
The Stuart Papers. Ed. J. H. Glover. London. 1847.
Letters which passed between Count Gyllenborg, the Barons Gortz, Sparre, and
Others. Edinburgh. 1717.
Home, John. The History of the Rebellion in the Year 1746. London. 1802.
Secret History of Colonel Hoocke's Negociations in Scotland in 1707. Edinburgh.
1760.
Correspondence of Colonel Nathaniel Hooke, 1703-7. Ed. William D. Macray.
(Roxburghe Club.) 2 vols. London. 1870-1.
Johnstone, James, Chevalier de. Memoirs of the Rebellion in 1746 and 1746.
Loudon. 1820.
Handlingar rorande Skandiiiaviens Historia. Stockholm. 1822.
The Highlands of Scotland in 1760. Ed. Andrew Lang. Edinburgh. 1898.
Historisk Tidsskrift (pp. 135-74, 276-86). Stockholm. 1898. 1901. 1903.
Lockhart, George. Lockhart Papers. 2 vols. London. 1817.
The Decline of the last Stuarts. Ed. Lord Mahon. (Roxburghe Club.) London. 1843.
Analecta Scotica : Collections illustrative of the History of Scotland. Ed. James
Maidment. 2 vols. Edinburgh. 1834-7.
The Argyle Papers. Ed. James Maidment, Edinburgh. 1834.
A Selection from the Papers of the Earls of Marchmont illustrative of Events from
1685 to 1760. 3 vols. London. 1831.
Maxwell of Kirkconnell, James. Narrative of Charles Prince of Wales' Expedition
to Scotland in the Year 1745. (Maitland Club.) Edinburgh. 1841.
Scottish Forfeited Estates Papers, 1716-46. Ed. A. H. Millar. (Scottish History
Society.) Edinburgh. 1908.
Memorials of John Murray of Broughton. Ed. Robert F. Bell. (Scottish History
Society.) Edinburgh. 1898.
Papers about the Rebellions of 1716 and 1745. Ed. Henry Paton. (Miscellany of
the Scottish History Society.) Edinburgh. 1893.
Patten, Robert. The History of the late Rebellion : with original Papers and
Characters of the principal Noblemen and Gentlemen conceru'd in it.
London. 1717.
A true Account of the Proceedings at Perth ; the Debates in the Secret Council
there ; with the Reasons and Causes of the suddaiu Breaking up of the Rebellion.
Written by a Rebel. London. 1716.
Rae, Peter. The History of the late Rebellion (1715) rais'd against King George
by the Friends of the Popish Pretender. Second edition. London. 1746.
Ramsay, John, Scotland and Scotsmen in the 18th Century. 2 vols. Edinburgh.
1888.
Bibliography. 861
A Collection of original Letters and authentick Papers relating to the Rebellion
of 1716. Edinburgh. 1730.
A Compleat History of the late Rebellion. London. 1716.
A List of Persons concerned in the Rebellion. Ed. the Earl of Roseberry and
Walter Macleod. (Scottish History Society.) Edinburgh. 1890.
A Faithful Register of the late Rebellion. London. 1718.
Saint-Simon, Due de. Memoires complets et authentiques sur le Siecle de Louis XIV
et la Regence. Ed. le Marquis de Saint-Simon. 21 vols. Paris. 1829-30.
Saxe, Marechal de. Lettres et Memoires relatifs aux !l6venements qui se sont passes
depuis 1733 jusqu'en 1750. 5 vols. Paris. 1794.
The Scots Magazine. Vols, vii and viii. Edinburgh. 1746-6.
A Collection of original Papers about the Scots Plot (1703). London. 1704.
Sinclair, John, Master of. Memoirs of the Insurrection in Scotland in 1716.
(Abbotsford Club.) Edinburgh. 1858,
A complete Collection of State Trials. Vols, xv-xix. London. 1812-3.
Statutes at Large. Vols, iv-vn. London. 1763-4.
The Albemarle Papers : being the Correspondence of William Anne second Earl of
Albemarle, Commander-in-Chief in Scotland 1746-7, with an Appendix of
Letters from Andrew Fletcher, Lord Justice-Clerk 1746-8. Ed. C. Sanford
Terry. 2 vols. (New Spalding Club.) Aberdeen. 1902.
The Chevalier de St Greorge and the Jacobite Movements in his Favour 1701-20.
Ed. C. Sanford Terry. London. 1901.
The Rising of 1746 : with a Bibliography of Jacobite History 1689-1788. Ed.
C. Sanford Terry. New edn. London. 1903.
Thurot, Fran9ois. Journal historique de la Campagne sur les Cotes d'^lficosse et
d'Irlande en 1767 et 1768. Dunkirk. 1760.
Wodrow, Robert. Analecta. (Maitland Club.) 4 vols. Edinburgh. 1842-3.
Correspondence. (Wodrow Society.) 3 vols. Edinburgh. 1842-3.
The Woodhouselee ms. Ed. A. F. Steuart. Edinburgh. 1907.
III. MODERN GENERAL WORKS.
Brown, P. Hume. History of Scotland. Vol. iii. Cambridge. 1908.
Browne, J. A History of the Highlands and of the Highland Clans. 4 vols.
Glasgow. 1838.
Burton, J. HiU. The History of Scotland to the Extinction of the last Jacobite
Insurrection. Vol. vm. Edinburgh. 1876.
Chambers, R. Domestic Annals of Scotland from the Revolution to the Rebellion
of 1745. London. 1861.
Craik, SirH. A Century of Scottish History. 2 vols. Edinburgh. 1901.
Cunningham, J, The Church Histoiy of Scotland. 2 vols. Edinburgh. 1859.
Graham, H. G. Social Life of Scotland in the 18th Century. 2 vols. Loudon.
1899.
Grub, G. An Ecclesiastical History of Scotland. 4 vols. Edinburgh. 1861.
Lang, A. History of Scotland. Vol. iv. Edinburgh. 1907.
Mackerrow, J. History of the Secession Church. 2 vols. Edinburgh. 1839.
Mathieson, W. L. Scotland and the Union, 1695-1747. Glasgow. 1905.
Morren, N. Annals of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, 1739-62.
2 vols. Edinburgh. 1838-40.
Skinner, J. An Ecclesiastical History of Scotland. 2 vols. London. 1788.
Stephen, W. History of the Scottish Church. 2 vols. Edinburgh. 1894-6.
Stewart, D. Sketches of the Character, Manners, and present State of the High-
landers of Scotland. 2 vols. Edinburgh. 1822.
Struthers, J. The History of Scotland from the Union to 1748. 2 vols. Glasgow.
1827-8.
862 Jacobitism and the Union.
IV. MONOGRAPHS ON SPECIAL SUBJECTS.
Blaikie, W. B. Itinerary of Prince Charles Edward Stuart. (Scottish History-
Society.) Edinburgh. 1897.
Cadellj Sir R. Sir John Cope and the Rebellion of 1745. Edinburgh. 1898.
Chambers, R. History of the Rebellions in Scotland under the Viscount of Dundee
and the Earl of Mar. Edinburgh. 1829.
History of the Rebellion in Scotland in 1746, 1746. 2 vols. Edinburgh. 1828.
Dixon, W. The Jacobite Episode in Scottish History. Edinburgh. 1874.
Doran, J. Mann and Manners at the Court of Florence 1740-86. London. 1876.
Ferguson, R. S. The Retreat of the Highlanders through Westmorland in 1745.
Kendal. 1889.
Head, F. W. The fallen Stuarts. Cambridge Historical Essays. No. xn.
Cambridge. 1901.
Kirsch, Peter Anton. Treibende Faktoren bei dem Schottischen Aufstande 1745-6
und Nachspiel desselben. In Historisches Jahrbuch, Vol. zxvii. Munich. 1906.
Lang, A. ■< Pickle the Spy : or. The Incognito of Prince Charles. London. 1897.
The Companions of Pickle. London. 1898.
Lefevre-Pontalis, G. Le Mission de Marquis d'!IQguilles en j^cosse aupres de Charles
Edouard. In Annales de I'^cole des Sciences Politiques. Paris. 1887.
Macdonald, A. History of the Clan Donald. 3 vols. Inverness. 1896-1907.
Macgregor, A. G. M. History of the Clan Gregor. 2 vols. Edinburgh. 1898-1901.
A royalist Family, Irish and French (1689-1789), and Prince Charles Edward.
Translated from the French by A. G- M. Macgregor. Edinburgh. 1904.
Mounsey, G. C. Carlisle in 1746. London. 1846.
Perthshire, a MQitary History of, 1660-1902. Ed. the Marchioness of Tullibar-
dine. 2 vols. Perth. 1908.
Salomon, F. Geschichte des letzten Ministeriums Konigin Annas von England,
1710-4. Gotha. 1894.
Thornton, P. M. The Stuart Dynasty : Short Studies of its Rise, Course, and early
Exile. London. 1890.
V. BIOGRAPHIES AND MEMOIRS.
Biscoe, A. C. The Earls of Middleton. London. 1876.
Bissett, A. Memoirs and Papers of Sir Andrew Mitchell. 2 vols. London. 1850.
Burton, J. HiU. Lives of Simon Lord Lovat and Duncan Forbes of Culloden.
London. 1847.
Campbell, R. The Life of John Duke of Argyle and Greenwich. London. 1746.
Carlyle, A. Autobiography. Edinburgh. 1860.
Dennistoun, J. Memoirs of Sir Robert Strange, Knt., and of Andrew Lumisden.
2 vols. London. 1855.
Dictionary of National Biography. 66 vols. London. 1885-1901.
Ewald, A. C. Life and Times of Prince Charles Stuart. New edn. London. 1904.
Forbin, Claude, Comte de. Memoires. Amsterdam. 1730.
Graham, J. M. Annals and Correspondence of the Viscount and the first and
second Earls of Stair. 2 vols. Edinburgh. 1875.
Haile, M. Queen Mary of Modena. London. 1905.
James Francis Edward : the Old Chevalier. London. 1907.
Jesse, J. H. Memoirs of the Pretenders and their Adherents. London. 1845.
Bibliography. 863
Keith, Fieldmarshal James. Fragment of a Memoir, 1714-34. (Spalding Club.)
Edinburgh. 1843.
Kelly, B. W. Life of Henry Benedict Stuart, Cardinal Duke of York. London.
1899.
The Conqueror of Culloden : being the Life and Times of WUliam Augustus
Duke of Cumberland, 1721-66. London, 1903.
Lang, A. Prince Charles Edward Stuart, the Young Chevalier. New edn.
London. 1903.
and' Shield, A. The King over the Water. [James III and VIII.] London.
1907.
Maclachlan, A. N. C. W illiam Augustus Duke of Cumberland : being a Sketch
of his Military Life and Character. London. 1876.
Norie, W. Drummond. Life and Adventures of Prince Charles Edward Stuart.
4 vols. London. 1903-4.
Ollphant, T. L. K. The Jacobite Lairds of Gask. London. 1870.
Omond, G. W. T. The Lord Advocates of Scotland. 2 vols. Edinburgh. 1883.
The Arniston Memoirs. Edinburgh. 1887.
Rankin, R. The Marquis d'Argenson. London. 1901.
Roome, H. D. James Edward, the Old Pretender. Oxford. 1904.
Scott, Mrs Maxwell. The Youth of James III, 1688-1712. In Nineteenth Century.
Vol. i-v. London. 1904.
Shield, Alice. Henry Stuart, Cardinal of York, and his Times. London. 1908.
Story, R. H. William Carstares : a Character and Career of the revolutionary
Epoch (1689-1716). London. 1874.
Terry, C. Sanford. The Young Pretender. London. 1903.
Thomson, K. Memoirs of the Jacobites of 1716 and 1745. 3 vols. London.
1846-6.
Vaughan, H. M. The last of the Royal Stuarts : Henry Stuart, Cardinal Duke
of York. London. 1906.
Wolff, H. W. The Pretender at Bar-le-Duc. In Blackwood's Magazine. Vol. clvi.
Edinburgh. 1894.
Zevoi-t, E. Le Marquis d'Argenson et le Ministere des Affaires ]iltrangeres. Paris.
1880.
VI. MAPS AND PLANS.
A section entitled "Maps and Plans illustrating the Jacobite Risings" will be
found at pp. 317-9 of C. Sanford Terry's The Rising of 1745 (edn. 1903). To those
there mentioned should be added, a plan of Gleushiel in the Scottish Historical
Review, vol. n, p. 416 ; of Prestonpans, Falkirk, and Culloden in Elcho's Short
Account ; of Culloden in Lang's History, vol. iv, p. 610. See also A. Smaii's Side-
Lights on the Forty-Five. (Edinburgh. 1903.)
864
CHAPTERS IV AND V.
THE BOURBON GOVERNMENTS IN FRANCE AND SPAIN.
(1715-46.)
I. MANUSCRIPTS.
The principal sources for the diplomatic histoiy of this period are to be found in
the Public Record OfBcej the Archives du ministere des Affaires Etrangeres, Paris,
the Archive histdrico nacional de Madrid, to which the documents previously stored
at Alcala de Henares have lately been removed. Much important correspondence is
at Simancas. The Carte Farnesiane in the Archivio di State at Naples are valuable ;
and these are supplemented by correspondence and documents relating to Alberoni
at the CoUegio S. Lazaro, near Fiacenza. The Venetian Relazioni, unfortunately not
printed for the eighteenth century, are of much interest as talking an external point
of view, and as throwing vivid light on the personalities at the Courts to which the
ambassadors were accredited.
See Flammermont, J. Rapport... sur les correspondances des Agents Diplo-
matiques ifitrangers en France avant la Revolution conservees dans les
Archives de Berlin, Dresde, Geneve, Turin, Genes, Florence, Naples,
Simancas, Lisbonne, Londres, La Haye et Vienne. Nouvelles Archives des
Missions Scientifiques et Litteraires. Vol. viii. Paris. 1896.
Legg, L. G. Wiclfham. List of Diplomatic Representatives and Agents,
England and France, 1689-1733. (Notes on the Diplomatic Relations of
England and France, ed. C. H. Firth.) Oxford and London. 1009.
II. CONTEMPORARY OR NEARLY CONTEMPORARY AUTHORITIES
(IN PRINT).
A. Memoirs, Correspondence etc.
Alberoni, Card. — The Conduct of Cardinal Alberoni, with an Account of some
Secret Transactions at the Spanish Court. London. 1720. [Untrustworthy.]
Armstrong, E. Letters of Alberoni to the Prince of Parma (from December,
1714). English Historical Review. Vol. v. London. 1890.
Antin, Due de. M^moires. Me'langes des Biblioph. Franc. Vol. ii. Paris. 1822.
Argenson, Rene Louis de Voyer, Marquis de. Journal et Memoires. Ed. E. J. B.
Rathe'ry. 9 vols. Paris. 1869-67.
Bacallar y Sana, Marques de San Felipe. Comentarios de la guerra de Espana hasta
la paz general del ano 1725. 4 vols. Genoa and Madrid. 1790-3.
Barbier, E. J. F. Chronique de la Re'gence et du Regue de Louis XV, 1718-63.
8 vols. Paris. 1867.
Belando, N. de. Historia Civil de Espafia 1700-33. 3 vols. Madrid. 1744.
Bernis, Cardinal F. L. de Pierre de. Memoires et Lettres, 1716-58. Ed. F. Masson.
2 vols. Paris. 1878.
Bibliography. 805
Berwick, J. Fitzjames Due de. Me'moires ecrits par lui-meme ; avec une suite
abregee depuis 1716, jusqu'a sa mort en 1734. Publ. par le Due de Fitzjames.
2 vols. Paris. 1778-80. Engl. Transl. [by L. J. Hooke]. London. 1779.
Bois-Jonrdain, M. de. Melanges. 3 vols. Paris. 1807.
Bourgeois, E. Lettres iutimes de L. M. Alberoni adressees au Comte I. Rocca.
Paris. 1892.
Brancas, Duchesse de. M^moires, suivies de la Correspondance de M™" de
Chateauroux. Ed. E. Asse. Paris. 1890.
Brosses, C. de. L'ltalie il y a cent ans, ou lettres ecrites en 1739 et 1740. 2 vols.
Paris. 1836.
Buvat, J. Journal de la Regence (1716-23). Ed. E. Campardon. 2 vols. Paris
1863.
Campo Raso, I. del. Memorias politicas y militares para servir de contiuuacion a
los comentarios del Marques de San Felipe. 2 vols. Madrid. 1792.
Carutti, D. Relazioue del Abbate Maro. Acad. R. di Torino. Series II, zix.
Turin. 1861.
Dangeau, Marquis de. Journal. Vols, xvi-xvin (to 1720). Edd. E. Soulie and
L. Dussieux. Paris. 1858-9.
[Defoe, Daniel.] The Case of the War in Italy stated. London. 1718.
Digueres, V. des. Lettres inedites de la reine Maria Leczinska et de la duchesse de
Luynes au president Renault. Paris. 1886.
Dorsanne, A. Journal contenant tout ce qui s'est passe a Rome et en France dans
I'afPaire de la Constitution Unigenitus. 2 vols. Rome. 1753.
Duclos, C. P. Memoires secretes sur le regne de Louis XIV, la Regence et le regne
de Louis XV. Ed. J. F. Barriere. Paris. 1881.
Duport de Cheverny, Comte. Memoires, 1731-87. Intr. et notes par R. de Creve-
coeur. Paris. 1909.
Fanr, M. Vie privee du Mare'chal de Richelieu. 3 vols. Paris. 1803.
Feydeau de Marville, C. H. (Comte de Gien). Lettres du Ministre Maurepas a
M. de Marville, lieutenant-general de police. Lettres de M. de Marville au
Ministre Maurepas. (Soc. hist, de France.) Paris. 1896.
Foscarini, M. Storia Arcana. Arch. Stor. Ital. Vol. v. Florence. 1843.
Galluzzi, R. Istoria del Grandueato di Toscana. 9 vols. Florence. 1781.
Henault, le President. Memoires. Ed. Baron de Vigan. Paris. 1865.
L. M. D. M. [La Mothe, dit La Hode.] Vie de Philippe d'Orleans, Regent du
Royaume. 2 vols. London. 1737.
Liria, Duke de. Diario del Viaje a Moseovia (1727-30). (Coleccidn de Doeumentos
ineditos para la historia de Espana. Vol. xciii. ) Madrid. 1889.
A review of this work. Quarterly Review. January 1 892.
Louis XV. Vie privee. [By Moufle d'Angerville.] 4 vols. London. 1791.
LouvUle, C. A. d'Allonville, Marquis de. Memoires. 2 vols. Paris. 1818.
Luynes, Due de. Memoires sur la Cour de Louis XV, 1736-68. Edd. L. Dussieux
and E. Soulie'. 17 vols. Paris. 1860-6.
Manifesto sur les sujets de rupture entre la France et I'Espagne. Pairis. I7l9.
Marais, M. Journal et Memoires sur la Regence et le regne de Louis XV, 1715-37.
Ed. M. de Leseure. 4 vols. Paris. 1863.
Marmontel, J. F. Regence du Due d'Oiieans. CEuvres posthumes. 2 vols.
Paris. 1806.
Massillon, J. B. Memoires de la Minority de Louis XV. Paris. 1792.
Maurepas, J. F. Phelypeaux de. Memoires. 3rd edn. 4 vols. Paris. 1792.
— — RecueU dit de Maurepas. 6 vols. Leyden. 1866.
Montesquieu, C. de S., Baron de. Voyages. Ed. Baron A. de Montesquieu.
2 vols. Paris. 1896.
Montgon, C. A. de. Me'moires. 8 vols. Lausanne. 1753.
C. M. H. VI. CBS. IV, v. 66
866 The Bourhon Governments in France and Spain.
Morozzo della Bocca, E. Lettere di Vittorio Amadeo II di Savoia, Re di Sicilia, a
G. M. Conte di Morozzo, Marchese della Bocca, suo Ambasciatorc a Madrid
(1713-17). (Miscellanea di Storia Patria. Vol. xxvi.) Turin. 1887.
Narbonne, P. (Premier Commissaire de police de la ville de Versailles). Journal
des regnes de Louis XIV et Louis XV, 1701-74. Ed. J. A. Le Roi. Paris and
Versailles. 1866.
Noailles, Marechal Due de. — Millot, C. F. X. M^moires polit. et milit. pour servir
a I'hist. de Louis XIV et Louis XV, composes sur les pieces recueill. par A.-M.,
D. de N. Ed. G. T. Villenave. Vol. iii. Coll. Petitot. ii, 72. Paris. 1829.
Orleans, Elisabeth Charlotte, Duchess of. See Bibliography to Vol. V, Chap. I.
Piossens, Chevalier de. Memoires de la Regence du Due d'Orleans durant la
minorite' de Louis XV. 3 vols. " The Hague " [Rouen]. 1729 and 1730. New
enlarged edn, by N. Lenglet de Fresnoy. 6 vols. Amsterdam. 1749.
Poggiali, C. Memorie storiche della citta di Piacenza. Vol. xii. Piacenza. 1766.
Poidebard, W. Correspondance litteraire et anecdotique entre M. de Saint-Fonds
et le President Dugas. Lyons. 1900.
Recueil des Instructions donnees aux ambassadeurs et ministres de France.
Naples et Parme. Intr. et Notes de J. Reinach. Paris. 1893.
Espagne. Intr. et Notes de A. Morel-Fatio et H. Leonardon. Vols, ii, in.
Paris. 1899.
Savoie, Sardaigne et Mantoue. Intr. et Notes du Comte Horric de Beaucaire.
Paris. 1899.
Relazioni diplomatiche della Corte di Savoia. Fraucia. Periodo iii. Vols, i-iii
(Biblioteca Storica Italiana.) 1886-8.
Richelieu, Due de. Memoires historiques et anecdotiques. 6 vols. Paris. 1829.
Ripperda, Duke de. Memoirs of the Duke de Ripperda, containing a succinct account
of.. .events. ..between 1716 and 1736. London. 1740. [Untrustworthy.]
Rousset, C. Correspondance de Louis XV et du Marechal de Noailles. 2 vols.
Paris. 1865.
Rousset de Missy, J. Histoire du Cardinal Alberoni. [Pretended translation from
the Spanish.] The Hague, 1719. Second edn, and Italian translation, 1720-1.
Saint-Simon, Due de. Memoires. Edd. A. Che'ruel and A. Regnier. 21 vols.
Paris. 1873-86. [From Vol. xi.]
Papiers inedits. Lettres et depeches sur I'ambassade d'Espagne. Ed. E.
Dumont. Paris. 1889.
Picot, G. Les papiers du Due de Saint-Simon aux Archives des Afeires
Etrangeres. (Compte Rendu de I'Acad. des Sc. Mor. et Pol. New Series.
Vol. XIV. Paris. 1880.)
Rauke, L. von. Uber die Memoiren des Due von Saint-Simon. Franzos.
Gftsch. Vol. V. Sammtl. Werke. Vol. xii. Leipzig. 1870.
Cheruel, A. Saint-Simon et I'Abbe Dubois, leurs relations de 1718 a 1722.
Revue Historique. Vol. i. Paris. 1876.
S^velinges, C. L. de. Memoires et correspondance du Cardinal Dubois. Paris. 1815.
Tesse, Marechal de. Memoires et Lettres. 2 vols. Paris. 1806.
Madame de. Souvenirs de Frouillay de Tesse, Marquise de Crequy, 1710-
1802. 7 vols. Paris. 1836.
(Toussaint, F. V..'') Anecdotes curieuses de la Cour de France sous le regne de
Louis XV. Ed. P. Fould. 3rd edn. Paris. 1908.
Ulloa, B. de. Restablecimiento de las fabricas y comercio Espanol. 2 parts.
Madrid. 1749.
Ustariz, G. de. Tedrica y Practica de Comercio y de Marina. Madrid. Editions
of 1724, 1742 and 1757.
Van Hoey, A. Lettres et negociations de M. Van Hoey pour servir a I'histoire de la
vie du Cardinal de Fleury. London. 1743. Engl. Transl. London. 1743.
Bibliography. 867
Villa, A. R. La Embajada del Baron de Ripperda en Viena. Boletin de la R. Ac.
de la Historia. Vol. xxx. Madrid. 1897.
Informacidn del Marques Beretti-Landy sobre antecedentes del Bardn de
Ripperda. Ibid. Vol. xxxi. 1897.
Villars, Marechal L. H. Due de. Memoires. Ed. Marquis de Vogu^. See. Hist.
France. 6 vols. Paris. 1884-94.
Vogiie, Marquis C. J. de. Villars d'apres sa correspondance et des documents
inedits. 2 vols. Paris. 1888.
Voltairej F. Arouet de. Precis du siecle de Louis XV. Vol. xxii of (Euvres
completes. Kehl. 1784-9.
Correspondance. Vols, lii and liii of the same.
B. Treaties.
The Collections of Dumont and Rousset, supplemented by G. F. de Martens, and
especially by A. del Cantillo, Tratados, Convenios y declaracidnes de paz y de
comercio, 1700-1842. Madrid. 1843 ; G. de Lamberty, Me'moires pour sei-yir
a I'histoire du xviii"" siecle. Vol. x. Amsterdam. 1736 (containing treaties
from 1718-31); and L. Bittner, Chronologisches Verzeichniss der Oester-
reichischeu Staatsvertrage. Vol. i (to 1763). Vienna. 1903.
C. Periodicals.
Annual Register. Gentleman's Magazine. Gazette de France. Mercure Historique
et Politique contenant I'etat pre'sent de I'Europe. (Engl. Translation: The
Present State of Europe, to 1733.) Recueil des Nouvelles ordinaires et extra-
ordinaires (from 1714). Gazette d'HoUande. Gaceta de Madrid.
III. SUBSIDIARY AUTHORITIES.
Altamira y Crevea, R. Historia de Espana. Vol. iv. Barcelona. 1909.
Armstrong, E. Elisabeth Farnese. London. 1892.
Alberoni and the Quadruple Alliance, Scottish Review. Paisley. January,
1897.
Ameth, A. Ritter von. Prinz Eugen von Savoyen. 3 vols. Vienna. 1869.
Aubertin, C. L' esprit publique au dix-huitieme siecle. Paris. 1889, etc.
Baraudon, A. La Maison de Savoie et la Triple Alliance, 1713-22. Paris. 1896.
Bartheleray, E. M. Comte de. Les lilies du Regent. 2 vols. Paris. 1874.
Mesdames de France, fiUes de Louis XV. Paris. 1879.
Les Correspondants de la Marquise de Balleroy. 2 vols. Paris. 1883»
Baudrillart, A. Philippe V et La Cour de France. 6 vols. Paris. [The fullest
and most important work on Franco-Spanish Histoi-y in this period.]
. Rapport sur une Mission en Espagne aux Archives d'Alcala de Henares et de
Simancas. Archives des Missions scientifiques et litteraires. Ser. iii. Vol. xv.
Paris. 1889.
Rapport sur une Mission en Espagne aux Archives de Simancas et d'Alcala
de Henares en 1893. Nouvelles Archives des Missions sc. et litt. Vol. vi.
Paris. 1893.
Beauriez, L. de. Une fiUe de France. Paris. 1887.
Bersani, Abbe. Storia del Cardinale Giulio Alberoni. Piacenza. 1861.
Bianchi, G Giulio Alberoni e il suo secolo. Piacenza. 1901.
Bliard, P. Dubois, Cardinal et premier ministre. Paris. 1901.
Bourgeois, E. Alberoni, Madame des Ursins et la reine Elisabeth Farnese. Paris.
1891.
Le Secret du Regent et la politique de I'Abbe Dubois. 1716-8. Paris. 1908.
[Triple and Quadruple Alliances.]
CHS. IV, y. 66 — 2
868 The Bourbon Governments in France and Spain.
Boutry, M. Vicomte de. Une creature du Cardinal Dubois. Intrigues et missions
diplomatiques du Cardinal de Tencin. Paris. 1902.
Boye, P. Stanislas Leszcynski et le troisieme traite de Vienna. Nancy. 1898.
Capefigue, J. B. H. R. Philippe d'Orle'anSj Regent de France. Paris. 1846.
Louis XV et la societe du xviii"" siecle. 4 vols. Paris. 1842.
Mesdemoiselles de Nesle et la jeunesse de Louis XV. Paris. 1864.
Diplomatic de la France et de I'Espagne depuis I'avenement de la Maison de
Bourbon, 1698-1846. Paris. 1846.
Carre, H. La France sous Louis XV. Paris. 1891.
Caruttij D. Storia della Diplomazia nella Corte di Savoia. Vol. iv. Turin. 1880.
Storia del Regno di Vittorio Amedeo II. Florence. 1863.
Storia del Regno di Carlo Emanuele III. 2 vols. Turin. 1869.
Chevalier, E. Histoire de la Marine Franfaise jusqu'au traite de paix de 1762.
Paris. 1902.
Courcy, M. A. Marquis de. L'Espagne apr&s la paix d'Utrecht. Paris. 1891.
Coxe, W. Memoirs of the Kings of Spain of the House of Bourbon. 3 vols.
London. 1813-6.
Dalborno, C. Elisabetta Farnese. Atti della R. Acad, di Arcqueologia e Belle Arti.
Vol. iiv. 1889-90.
Danvila y Burguero, A. Estudios espafioles del siglo xvin.
(1) Luisa Isabel de Orleans y Luis I. Madrid. 1902.
(2) Fernando VI y Dona Barbara de Braganza. Madrid. 1905.
Danvila y Collado, M. Reinado de Carlos III. Vol. i. Madrid. 1892.
Desdevises du Dezert, G. L'Espagne de I'ancien regime. Paris. 1898.
Driault, E. Chauvelin. Rev. d'histoire diplomatique. No. x. 1893.
Duro, C. F. Armada espanola. 9 vols. Madrid. 1896-1903.
Duron, H. Philippe d'Orleans, Regent. Sa jeunesse. Memoires de I'Acad. de
Stanislas. Series v. Vol. xii. 1896.
Filon, C. A. O. L'AUiance Anglaise au xvm"" siecle, depuis la paix d'Utrecht
jusqu'a la Guerre de la Succ. d'Autriche. Memoire lu a I'Acad. des Sc. Mor.
et Pol. Paris. 1860.
Funck-Brentano, F. La Re'gence, 1716-23. Paris. 1909.
Gachard, M. Les Archives Farnesiennes a Naples. Bulletin de la Commission
royale d'histoire. Vol. xi. Brussels. 1869.
Gauthier-Villars, H. Le mariage de Louis XV d'apres des documents nouveaux.
Paris. 1900.
Gay, C. Negociations relatives a I'etablissement de la Maison de Bourbon sur le
trone des Deux-Siciles (1701-36). Paris. 1863.
Haggard, Lieut. -Col. A. C. P. The Regent of the Roues. London. 1906.
The real Louis XV. 2 vols. London. 1906.
Haussonville, J. O. B. de Cleron, Comte de. Histoire de la reunion de la Lorrame
a la France. 4 vols. Paris. 1880.
Hume,M.A. S. Spain; its greatness and decay. (Camb. Hist. Ser.) Cambridge. 1898.
Jobez, A. La France sous Louis XV. 6 vols. Paris. 1864-73.
Laborderie, A. de. Revue de Bretagne et de Vendee. 1867-8-9, 1868.
Lafuente, M. Historia general de Espafla. Vol. xix. Madrid. 1867.
Lavisse, E. Histoire de France. Vol. viii. Pt. ii. Paris. 1909.
Lea, H. C. History of the Inquisition in Spain. 4 vols. New York. 1907.
Le Begue de Serminy, Comte M. Les Brigandages Maritimes de I'Angleterre sous
le regne de Louis XV. Revue des Questions Historiques. Paris. 1908. (i, ii.)
Legrelle, A. La Diplomatie Fran9aise et la Succession d'Espagne. Vol. ii. La
Paix (1710-26). 2nd edn. Braine-Ie-Comte. 1899.
L^montey, P. E. Histoire de la R^gence et de la Minorite de Louis XV, jusqu'au
ministere du Card. Fleury. 2 vols. Paris. 1832.
Lescure, M. de. Les maitresses du Regent. Paris. 1861.
Bibliography. 869
Macanaz, M. Maldonado. Don Rafael Melchor Macanaz considerate como politico
y como regalista. Madrid. 1886.
Articles on Alberoni. Revista de Espana. Madrid. 1884.
Mannontel, J. F. Regence du Due d'Orleans. 2 vols. Paris. 1806.
Marquiset, A. La Duchesse de Fallary, 1697-1782. Paris. 1907.
Martin, H. Histoire de France. Vol. xv. Paris. 1864.
Michelet, J. Histoire de France. Vol. xvii. Paris. 1879.
Moore, G. Lives of Cardinal Alberoni, the Duke of Ripperda, and the Marquis of
Pomhal. 2 vols. London. 1806-19. [Untrustworthy.]
Noorden, C. von. Victor Amadous II von Savoyen. In Historische Vortrage,
hrsgbn. von W. Maurenhrecher. Leipzig. 1884.
Pajol, C. P. V. Comte de. Les guerres sous Louis XV. 7 vols, and Atlas. Paris.
1881-91.
Papa, V. L' Alberoni e la sua dipartita dalla Spagna. Turin. 1876.
Perez, L. Le President Renault et M^^ du Deffand. Srd edn. Paris. 1893.
Perkins, J. B. France under the Regency. London. 1892.
Professione, A. II Ministero in Spagna e il Processo del Cardinale Giulio Alberoni.
Turin. 1898.
Ranke, L. von. Franzosische Geschichte, vornehml. im xvi und xvii Jahrh.
Vol. IV. Bk. XVII : Die Regentschaft und Card. Fleury. Sammtl. Werke.
Vol. XI. Leipzig. 1869.
Raynal, P. de. Le mariage d'un roi. Paris. 1887.
Reaulx, Marquise des. Le roi Stanislas et Maria Leczinska. Paris. 1895.
Riviere, H. La Marine fran^aise sous le regne de Louis XV. Paris. 1859.
Rulhiere, C. C. de. Anecdotes sur le Marechal de Richelieu. Paris. 1890.
Scelle, G. La Traite Negriere aux Indes de Castille. Vols, i, ii. Contrats et
traites d'Assiente. Paris. 1906. [Vol. in, not yet published, will treat of
the period from 1715-50.]
Schipa, M. II regno di Napoli al tempo di Carlo di Borbone. Naples. 1904.
Seilhac, Comte V. de. L'Abbe Dubois, premier Ministre de Louis XV. 2 vols.
Paris. 1882.
Sempere, J. Historia del lujo y de las leyes suntuarias de Espana. Madrid. 1788.
Syveton, G. Une Cour et un Aventurier au xviii° siecle : le baron de Ripperda.
Paris. 1896.
Thirion, H. La vie privee des financiers au dix-huitieme siecle. Paris. 1895.
Madame de Prie, 1698-1727. Paris. 1905.
Vandal, A. Louis XV et Elisabeth de Russie. Paris. 1882.
Une ambassade fran9aise en Orient sous Louis XV. La Mission du Marquis
de Villeneuve. 2nd edn. Paris.
Vernon, K.D. Italy, 1492-1792. (Cambridge Historical Series.) Cambridge. 1908.
Villa, A. R. Don Cenon de Somodevilla, Marque's de la Ensenada. Madrid. 1878.
Patino y Campillo. Madrid. 1882.
Viollet, A, Histoire des Bourbons d'Espagne. Paris. 1843.
Weber, O. Die Quadrupel-AUianz vom Jahre 1718. Vienna. 1887.
Wiesener, L. Le regent, I'abbe Dubois et les Anglais d'apres les sources britan-
niques. 3 vols. Paris. 1891-9.
Wilson, Lt.-Col. C. T. The Duke of Berwick, Marshal of France, 1702-34.
London. 1883.
Wirminghaus, A. Zwei Spanische Mercantilisten : Geronimo de Ustariz und
Bernardo de Ulloa. Halle. 1886.
Zevort, E. Le Marquis d'Argenson et le ministere des affaires etrangeres du
18 nov. 1744 au 10 Jan. 1747. Paris. 1880.
Zobi, A. Storia civile della Toscana, 1737-1848. Vol. i. Florence. 1860.
[See also the Bibliographies to Ohapters 11 (1) ,• ///; and Vol. V, Chapters I and II.]
CHS. IV, V.
870
CHAPTER VI.
FINANCIAL EXPERIMENTS AND COLONIAL
DEVELOPMENT.
[As to the general English and French history of the period see Bibliographies to
Chapters I, 2; II; and IV, So far as concerns the colonies this Bibliography is con-
fined to the British West Indies, West Africa, the Cape of Good ffope and the Slave
Trade. For works relating to other parts of the colonial world reference should be
made to the Bibliographies of Vol. VII, Chapters I and II, and Chapter III; Vol. IX,
Chapter XXIII; Vol. X, Chapters VIII, X, and XXL]
I. BIBLIOGRAPHIES.
Cunningham, W. Growth of English Industry and Commerce. Modern Times.
Part II : Laissez Faire. Bibliographical Index. Cambridge. 1907.
Fairbridge, C. A. and Noble, J. Catalogue of Books relating to South Africa.
Capetown. 1886.
Levasseur, E. Systeme de Law. Preface, with a description of the principal original
documents. Paris. 1854.
Stevens, H. Catalogue of the American Books in the British Museum. London. 1866.
Theal, G. McC. History of South Africa under the Dutch East India Company.
Vol. II. Appendix : Notes on Books. 2nd edn. London. 1897.
Winsor, J. Narrative and critical history of America. Vol. v. Editorial Notes,
I, Law and the Mississippi Bubble. Vol. viii. Bibliographical notes on the
West Indies. London. 1889.
II. JOHN LAW AND THE MISSISSIPPI SCHEME.
A. CONTEMPOBARY AUTHORITIES.
Barbier, E. J. F. Chronique de la Regence. 4 vols. Paris. 1857.
Buvat, J. Journal de la Re'gence. 1716-23. 2 vols. Paris. 1865.
Case of Mr Law truly stated, the. London. 1721.
Company of Mississippi, a full and impartial account of the... in French and English.
London. 1720.
Defoe, D. The Chimera or the French way of paying National Debts laid open.
London. 1720.
Duhautchamps, B. M. Histoire du Systeme des Finances pendant les ann^es 1719
et 1720. 6 vols. The Hague. 1739. [Vols, v and vi contain a collection of
Arrets and Edicts relating to the System.]
Histoire du Visa. 4 vols. The Hague. 1743.
Dutot, C. de F. Reflexions politiques sur les finances et le commerce. 2 vols.
The Hague. 1738. Reprinted in E. Daire's ilSconomistes-Financiers. Paris.
1843.
Graham, J. M. Annals and Correspondence of the Viscount and the first and
second Earls of Stair. 2 vols. Edinburgh and London. 1876.
Bibliography. 871
Hardwicke, Philip Yorke, second Earl of. Miscellaneous State Papers. 1501-1726.
Vol. n. London. 1778.
Kurtze Remarques iiber den...Mississipi8chen'Actien-Handel in Paris, und andere
grosse Unternehmungen des Heern Laws. Leipzig. 1720.
Law, John.
CEuvres de Jean Law. Paris. 1790.
Economistes-Financiers du xviii" siecle. Law. E. Daire. Paris. 1843.
[These two collections of Law's works contain : Lettres sur le nouveau systeme
des iinances, published in the Mercure de France, Feb., Mar., Apr., May, 1720;
Lettres sur les banqnes, 1715?; Memoire sur 1' usage des monnaies; Memoires
justiiicatifs, 1724; Memoires sur les banques, 1715.'' and a French translation of the
Money and Trade.]
Letter, a, to Mr Law upon his arrival in Great Britain. Loudon. 1721.
Letter to Mr Law, a Second. London. 1721.
Leven en caracter, het, van den Heer Jan Law. Amsterdam. 1722.
Memoirs, life and character of the Great Mr Law, The. London. 1721.
Money and Trade. Edinburgh. 1705. London. 1720.
Observations on the New System of the Finances of France in two Letters by
Mr Law. Trans, from the French: London. 1720.
Secret, le, du Systeme de M. Law devoile en deux lettres ecrites par un Due
et Pair de France et un Mylord Anglois. The Hague. 1721.
Melon, S. F. Essai politique sur le commerce. 1st edn. 1734. Reprinted in
Daire's !l&conomistes-Financiers.
Memoire pour servir a justifier La Compagnie des Indes. 1720.
Montagu, Lady Mary Wortley, Letters of. Edited by Lord Wharncli£Fe. 2 vols.
London. 1893.
Montesquieu, Charles de Secondat, Baron de. Lettres Persanes. See CEuvres of
Montesquieu. 7 vols. Paris. 1769.
Paris-Duverney. Examen de Dutot's Reflexions politiques. 2 vols. The Hague. 1740.
Present State, the, of the French Revenues and Trade and of the Controversy
betwixt the Parliament of Paris and Mr Law. London. 1720.
Saint-Simon, Memoires du Due de. Par M. Cheruel. Paris. 1856-8. Par A. de
Boislisle. Paris. . 1879- . {In course of publication.)
Tafereel, het groote, der Dwaasheid. Amsterdam (?). 1720.
Veron de Forbonnais, F. Recherches et considerations sur les finances de France.
1595-1721. 2 vols. Basle. 1758.
Villars, Memoires du Marechal de. 6 vols. Paris. 1884^1904.
B. Later Works.
Alexi, S. John Law und sein System. Berlin. 1885.
D'Avenel, Vicomte G. Histoire ^conomique de la propriete, des salaires, et de tous
les prix, 1200-1800. 4 vols. Paris. 1894.
Bailly, A. Histoire Financiere de la France. Vol. ii. Paris. 1830.
Blanc, L, Histoire de la Revolution Fran9aise. Vol. i. Paris. 1847.
Capefigue, J. B. H. R. Histoire des grandes operations financieres. Vol. i. Les
Fermiers Generaux depuis le xvm' siecle. Paris. 1855.
Cochut, P. A. Law, son systeme et son e'poque. Paris. 1853. In English. London.
1856.
Courtois, A. ^ Histoire de la Banque de France. Paris. 1875.
Daire, E. Economistes-Financiers du xviii" siecle. Notice Historique sur Jean
Law. Paris. 1843.
Davis, A. McFarland. Historical Study of Law's System. Boston. 1887. Re-
printed from the American Quarterly Journal of Economics. Boston. April, 1887.
872 Financial Eccperiments and Colonial Development.
Heymanrij J. Law und sein System. Munich. 1853.
Kurtzel, A. Geschichte der Law'schen Finanzoperation. Leipzig. 1846.
Lacretelle, J, 0. D. de. Histoire de France pendant le dix-huitieme siecle.
4th edn. Vol. i. Paris. 1819.
Lemontey, P. E. Histoire de la Regence et de la Minorite de Louis XV. 2 vols.
Paris. 1832.
Levasseur, E. Recherches historiques sur le Systeme de Law. Paris. 1854.
Mackay, C. Memoirs of extraordinary .popular delusions, 2nd edn. 2 vols.
London. 1862.
Martin, H. Histoire de France. Vol. xvii. Paris. 1851.
Michelet, J. Histoire de France. Vol. ly. Paris. 1863.
Nicholson, J. S. Money and Monetary Problems, Essay on Law. 3rd edn.
London. 1895.
Pereire, E. and I. Du Systeme de Law. (Essay, dated Nov. 1834, appended to
Enquete sur la Banque de France. Depositions of MM. E. and L Pereire.)
Paris. 1866.
Russell, Lord John. History of the Principal States of Europe from the Peace of
Utrecht. Vol. ii. London. 1826.
Steuart, Sir J. An Inquiry into the Principles of Political Economy. London. 1767.
Thiers, A. Notice sur Law et son Systeme in the Dictionnaire de la Conversation.
Vol. XXXV. Loudon. 1837.
Vallee, Oscar de. Le Due d'Orleans et le Chancelier Daguesseau. Paris. 1860.
Wood, J. P. A Sketch of the Life of John Law of Lauriston. Edinburgh and
London. 1791.
— ' — Life of John Law of Lauriston. Edinburgh. 1824.
111. THE SOUTH SEA SCHEME.
A. Contemporary Authorities.
Account, an, of the Loans of the South Sea. 1722.
Account, an, of the Subscriptions of the South Sea Company. 1722.
Ad vantages... to the Public and to the South Sea Company by the execution of the
South Sea Scheme. London. 1728.
Aislabie's second speech on his defence in the House of Lords, Mr. London. 1721.
American trade before and since the establishment of the South Sea Company.
London. 1739.
Answer to a Calumny (Asiento Trade). London. 1728.
Argument, an, to show the disadvantage... from obliging the South Sea Company to
fix what capital stock they wUl give for the annuities. London. 1720.
Barbier, S. An expedient to pay the public debts. London. 1719.
Battle of the Bubbles. By a Stander-by. London. 1720.
Bubblers Mirrour or England's Folly, the. 1720.
Case, the, of Contracts for the Third and Fourth Subscriptions. London. 1720.
Case, the, of the Annuitants stated. London. 1720.
Case, the, of the Bank Contract. London. 1735.
Case, the, of the Borrowers on the South Sea Loans stated. London. 1721.
Case, the, of the Right Hon. John Aislabie, Esq. London. 1721.
Case, the, of Sir Robert Chaplin, Bart., one of the late Directors of the South Sea
Company. London. 1721.
Collection, a, of the Several Petitions of the Counties, Boroughs, etc., presented
to the House of Commons complaining of the Great Miseries... occasioned by
the. ..South Sea Company. London. 1721.
Comparison, a, between the Proposals of the Bank and the South Sea Company.
London. 1720.
BibUography. 873
Considerations on the present state of the nation as to public credit. London. 1720.
Considerations recommending to the proprietors of South Sea Stock the proposals
for engrafting part of that Company's funds into the stock of the Bank and East
India Companies. London. 1722.
Critical History of the Administration of Sir Robert Walpole. London. 1743.
Davenant, C. Dissertation on the Plantation Trade. Political and Commercial
Works, ed. Sir C. Whitworth. Vol. ii. London. 1771. Also in Select Dis-
sertations on Colonies and Plantations. London. 177^.
Defence of the observations on the Assiento Trade. London. 1728.
Defoe, D. The Anatomy of Exchange-Alley. London. 1719.
Detection, a, of the whole management of the South Sea Company. London. 1721.
Dialogue, a, concerning Sir Humphry Mackworth's proposal. ..for relief of the South
Sea Company. London. 1720.
Elking, H. A view of the Greenland trade and whale fishery. London. 1722.
Essay, an, for discharging the debts of the nation... and the South Sea Scheme con-
sidered. London. 1720.
Essay, an, for establishing a new Parliament money. London. 1720.
Examination, an, and explanation of the South Sea Company's Scheme. London.
1720.
Hutcheson, A. An abstract of all the Public Debts remaining due Michaelmas 1722.
London. 1723.
A Collection of Treatises relating to the National Debts and Funds. London.
1720.
A True State of the South Sea Scheme as it was first formed. London. 1722 .''
Index Rerum et Vocabulorum (Lists of subscribers). London. 1722.
Journals of the House of Commons. Vol. xix.
Letter, a, to a conscientious man. ..demonstrating the fallaciousness of the South
Sea Scheme. Loudon. 1720.
Letter, a, to a member of Parliament concerning the South Sea Company, London.
1720.
Mackworth, Sir H. An answer to several queries relating to the proposals.
London. 1720.
A proposal for payment of the Public Debts, for relief of the South Sea
Company. London. 1720.
Midriff, Sir J. Observations on the Spleen and Vapours. London. 1721.
Milner, J. Three letters relating to the South Sea Company and the Bank.
London. 1720.
New Year's gift for the Directors, a. London. 1721.
Observations on the Assiento Trade. London. 1728.
Pangs of Credit, the. By an orphan annuitant. London. 1722.
Parliamentary History. Vol. vii. London. 1811.
Philips, E. An Appeal to Common Sense. London. 1720. Partii. London. 1721.
Proceedings of the House of Lords in relation to the late Directors of the South Sea
Company. London. , 1722.
Proposals for restoring credit. London. 1721.
Rise, the, of the Stocks the Ruin of the People. London. 1721.
Several Reports, the, of the Committee of Secrecy. 2 vols. London. 1721.
Shaw, W. A. Select Tracts and Documents illustrative of English Monetary
History, 1626-1730. London. 1896.
South Sea Scheme, the, examined. London. 1720.
South Sea Scheme, the, detected. London. 1720.
Speech, the, of the Right Hon. John Aislabie, Esq., upon his defence. London. 1721.
State of the nation. Appendix. The Assiento. London. 1725.
Steele, Sir R. The Crisis of Property. London. 1720.
874 Financial Experiments and Colonial Development.
Steele, Sir R. A nation a family. London. 1720.
Stevens, Captain J. The Rule established in Spain for the Trade in the West Indies.
Translated from the Spanish. London. 1712?
Stiptick, a, for a bleeding nation. London. 1721.
Templeman, D. The Secret History of the late Directors of the South Sea Company
containing a particular Account of their conduct with regard to the Assieuto
Commerce. London. 1735.
Time Bargains tried by the Rules of Equity. London. 1720.
True statBj a, of public credit. London. 1721.
True state, a, of the contracts relating to the Third Money Subscription. London.
1721.
View, a, of the Coasts, Countries and Islands within the limits of the South Sea
Company (with map). Loudon. 1711.
B. Later Works.
Andr^ades, A. Essai sur la fondation et I'histoire de la Banque d'Angleterre, 1694-
1844. Paris. 1901.
Bastable, C. F. Public Finance. 3rd edn. London. 1903.
Brisco, N. A. The Economic Policy of Robert Walpole. Columbia Univ. Studies.
Vol. XXVII. No. 1. New York. 1907.
Burton, J. H. History of the Reign of Queen Anne. S vols. Edinburgh and
London. 1880.
Coxe, W. Memoirs of the Life and Administration of Sir Robert Walpole. 3 vols.
London. 1798.
Doubleday, T. A Financial, Monetary and Statistical History of England, 1688-
1847. London. 1847.
Francis, J. Chronicles and Characters of the Stock Exchange. London. 1855.
History of the Bank of England. Vol. i. London. 1847.
Gibbon, E. Memoirs of Life and Writings. Vol. i. London. 1796.
Hamilton, R. An Inquiry concerning the National Debt of Great Britain. 3rd edn.
Edinburgh. 1818.
Lecky, W. E. H. History of England in the Eighteenth Century. 8 vols. London.
1883-90.
Mahon, Lord. History of England from the Peace of Utrecht to the Peace of Aix-
la-Chapelle. 3 vols. London. 1837.
McCarthy, J. History of the Four Georges. 4 vols. London. 1884.
Michael, W. Der Siidseeschwindel vom Jahre 1720. Stuttgart. 1908.
Rapin-Thoyras, Paul de. Histoire d'Angleterre. Vol. xiii. The Hague. 1736.
Rogers, J. E. T. Industrial and Commercial History of England. 2 vols. London.
1902.
Sinclair, Sir J. History of the Public Revenue of the British Empire. 3rd edn.
3 vols. London. 1803-4.
Willson, B. The Great Company. 2 vols. London. 1900.
Wrightj T. Caricature History of the Georges. London. 18G8.
IV. THE COLONIES.
A. Contemporary Authorities.
Abridgement of minutes of evidence taken before Committee of the whole House
(Slave Trade). 1789.
Abstract of the evidence before a Select Committee of the House of Commons in
1790 and 1791 on the part of the petitioners for the abolition of the Slave Trade.
Loudon. 1791.
Bibliography. 876
Account of the European Settlement in America. Revised by Edmund Burke.
2 vols. London. 1757.
African Trade, the great pillar and support of the British Plantation Trade in
America, The. London. 1745.
Appeal, an, to the Candour and Justice of the people of England on behalf of the
West India merchants and planters. London. 1792.
Barrow, Sir J. An account of travels into the interior of Southern Africa, in the
years 1797 and 1798. 2 vols. London. 1801-4.
Benezet, A. A description of Guinea... with an enquiry into the rise and progress
of the Slave Trade. London. 1788.
Calendar of Home Office Papers, 1760-76. 4 vols. London. 1878-99.
Calendar of Treasury Books and Papers, 1728-45. 6 vols. London. 1897-1903.
Calendar of Treasury Papers, 1714^28. 2 vols. London. 1883,1889.
Case of the Sugar Colonies, the. London. 1792.
Clarkson, T. Essay on the Slavery and Commerce of the Human Species. London.
1786.
History of the Abolition of the African Slave Trade. London. 1839.
Comparative importance of our acquisitions from France in America. London. 1762.
Considerations on the present peace as far as it is relative to the Colonies and the
African Trade. London. 1763.
Considerations relating to an additional duty on sugar. London. 1747.
Cook, Captain J. A Voyage to the Pacific Ocean. Vol. i. London. 1784.
Country, a. Gentleman's reasons for voting against Mr Wilberforce's motion.
London. 1792.
Danvers, F. C. Report on the Records of the India Office. Vol. i. Part i.
London. 1887.
Foot, J. A defence of the Planters in the West Indies. London. 1792.
Gisborne, T. Remarks on the late decision of the House of Commons respecting
the abolition of the Slave Trade. London. 1792.
Hippisley, J. Essays, relating to the African Trade. London. 1764.
Houston, J. Account of the Coast of Guinea. London. 1725.
Hughes, G. Natural History of Barbados. London. 1750.
Impoiiance of effectually supporting the Royal African Company. 2nd edn. (with
useful map). London. 1746.
Importance of the Sugar Colonies to Great Britain. London. 1731.
Jauisoh, H. R. Extracts from the St Helena Records, 1673-1835. St Helena. 1885.
Johnsouy Captain C. A General History of the Pirates. London. 1724.
Koch, C. G. de, and Schoell, M. S. F. Histoire Abre'gee des Traites de Paix.
15 vols. Paris. 1817-8.
Kolbe, P. Description du Cap de Bonne-Esperance...tiree des Memoires de
Mr Pierre Kolbe. 3 vols. Amsterdam. 1743.
Labat, J. B. Nouveau Voyage aux isles d'Amdrique. 6 vols. Paris. 1722.
Leguat, F. Voyage of. Hakluyt Society Publications. 2 vols. London. 1891.
Leibbrandt, H. C. V. Precis of the Archives of the Cape of Good Hope. 18 vols.
published. Capetown. 1896- .
Meredith, H. An Account of the Gold Coast of Africa, with a brief history of the
African Company. London. 1812.
Miscellaneous, a, essay, concerning the course pursued by Great Britain in the
affairs of her colonies. Loudon. 1755.
Moodie, D. The Record or A Series of Official Papers relative to the condition and
treatment of the Native Tribes of South Africa. Capetown. 1838.
Mun, T. England's Treasure by Foreign Trade. London. 1713.
Papers relative to Codrington College, Barbados, 1709-1826. London. 1828.
Postlethwayt, M. The Importance of the African Expedition. Loudon. 1768.
876 Financial Experiments and Colonial Deoelopment.
Pownall, T. The Administration of the Coloaies. 3rd edn. London. 1766.
Present state of the Bi-itish and French trade to Africa and America compared.
London. 1745.
Ramsay, J. Essay on the Treatment and Conversion of the African Slaves in the
British Sugar Colonies. London. 1784.
Objections to the abolition of the Slave Trade with answers. London. 1788.
Raynal, G. T. F. Philosophical and Political History of the Settlements and Trade
of Europeans in the East and West Indies. Trans, from the French by
J. Justamond. 4 vols. London. 1776.
Remarks upon a book entitled the Present State of the Sugar Colonies. London. 1731.
Report of the Privy Council on Trade to Africa, with appendices. 1789.
Representation of the Board of Trade relating to. ..His Majesty's Plantations in
America. London. 1733-4.
Sharp, G. A representation of the injustice and dangerous tendency of tolerating
slavery in England. London. 1769.
Sparmann, A. A Voyage to the Cape of Good Hope, 1772-6. Translated from the
Swedish. 2 vols. Perth. 1789.
State of the Island of Jamaica. London. 1726.
Stavorinus, J. S. Voyages to the East Indies. Translated from the Dutch. 3 vols.
London. 1798.
Substance of Report of the Directors of the Sierra Leone Company. London. 1792.
Thunberg, C. F. Voyages au Japon par le Cap de Bonne-Esperance. Translated
into French. 4 vols. Paris. 1796.
Wadstrom, C. B. Observations on the Slave Trade and a description of some parts
of the coast of Guinea. London. 1789.
An essay on Colonisation particularly applied to the Western Coast of Africa.
2 parts. London. 1794.
Wesley, J. Thoughts upon slavery. London. 1774.
WQberforce, W. The Abolition of the Slave Trade. London. 1807.
Letter to the Prince of Talleyrand Perigord on the Slave Trade 1814.
Printed iu the Pamphleteer. Vol. v. London. 1815.
B. Later Works.
(1) The West Indies.
Atwood, T. History of Dominica. London. 1791.
Beckford, W. A descriptive account of Jamaica. 2 vols. London. 1790.
Situation of negroes in Jamaica. London. 1788.
Borde, P. G. L. Histoire de I'ile de la Trinidad. 1498-1797. Paris. 1876.
Breen, H. H. St Lucia. London. 1844.
Bridges^ G. W. Annals of Jamaica. 2 vols. London. 1828.
DaUas, R. C. History of the Maroons. 2 vols. London. 1803.
Edwards, Bryan. History of the British Colonies in the West Indies. 6 vols.
London. 1819.
Historical Survey of St Domingo. London. 1801.
Gardner, W, J. History of Jamaica. London. 1873.
Godet, T. L. Bermuda. London. 1860.
Joseph, E.L. History of Trinidad. 1498-1837. Trinidad. 1838.
Long, E. History of Jamaica. 3 vols. London. 1774.
Lucas, C. P. Historical Geography of the British Colonies. West Indies. Vol. ii.
2nd edn. Oxford. 1906.
Ogilvy, J. An account of Bermuda, past and present. Hamilton, Bermuda. 1883.
Oliver, V. L. History of Antigua. 3 vols. London. 1894-9.
Pezuela, J. de la. Eusayo histdrico de la Isla de Cuba. New York. 1842.
Bibliography. 877
Schomburgk, Sir R. H. History of Barbados. London. 1848.
Southey, Captain T. Chronological History of the West Indies. 3 vols. London. 1827.
Stephen, Sir G. Anti-Slavery Recollections. London. 1854.
Williams, W. F. Historical and statistical account of the Bermudas. London. 1848.
Woodcock, H. L History of Tobago. Ayr. 1867.
(2) Africa.
Bandinel, J. Some account of the Trade in Slaves from Africa as connected with
Europe and America. London. 1842.
Brooke, T. H. History of St Helena. 2nd edn. London. 1824.
Carey, H. C. Slave Trade, Domestic and Foreign. London. 1853.
Cochin, A. L'Abolition de I'Esclavage. Paris. 1861.
Johnston, Sir H. H. Colonization of Africa. Cambridge. 1905.
Lucas, C. P. Historical Geography of the British Colonies. Vol. in^ West Africa.
2nd edn. Oxford. 1900. Vol. iv. South and East Africa. 2 parts. Oxford. 1898.
Melliss, J. C. St Helena. London. 1875.
Moodie, J. W. D. Ten Years in South Africa. London. 1835.
Owen,R. D. The Wrong of Slavery, The Right of Emancipation. Philadelphia. 1864.
Percival, Captain R. An Account of the Cape of Good Hope. London. 1804.
Theal, G. McC. Chronicles of Cape Commanders 1652-91. Contains also four
papers relating to a later period and notes on English, Dutch and French books
published before 1796 which refer to S. Africa. Capetown. 1882.
History of South Africa, 1652-1795. 2 vols. London. 1897.
Thomson, J. Mungo Park and the Niger. London. 1890.
Trotter, A. F. Old Cape Colony from 1652 to 1806. Westminster. 1903.
(3) General Works on Commerce and Colonisation.
Anderson, A, History of Commerce. 4 vols. London. 1787-9.
Beer, G. L. Commercial Policy of England towards the American Colonies. New
York. 1893.
British Colonial Policy, 1754-65. New York. 1907.
Bonnassieux, P. Les Grandes Compagnies de Commerce. Paris. 1892.
Brougham, H., Lord. Colonial Policy of the European Powers. 2 vols. Edinburgh.
1803.
Cawston, G., and Keane, A. H. Early Chartered Companies. London. 1906.
Cunningham, W. Growth of English Industry and Commerce. JModern Times.
Cambridge. 1907.
Egerton, H. E. History of Colonial Policy. London. 1898.
Heeren, A. H. L. History of the Political System of Europe and its Colonies.
London. 1864.
Howison, J. European Colonies. 2 vols. London. 1834.
Leroy Beaulieu, P. De la Colonisation chez les peuples modernes. 5th edn.
2 vols. Paris. 1902.
Levi, L. History of British Commerce, 1763-1870. London. 1872.
Macpherson, D. Annals of Commerce. 4 vols. Loudon. 1806.
McCuUoch, J. R. Dictionary of Commerce. London. 1880.
Martin, R. M. British Colonies. 6 vols. London and New York. 1851-7.
Merivale, H. Lecture on Colonies and Colonization. 2nd edn. London. 1861.
Payne, E. J. European Colonies. London. 1890.
Playfair, ^Y. Commercial and Political Atlas. London. 1786.
Postlethwayt, M. Universal Dictionary of Trade and Commerce. 2 vols. London.
1774.
Smith, A. Wealth of Nations. Ed. J. E. T. Rogers. 2 vols. London. 1869.
878
CHAPTER VII.
POLAND UNDER THE SAXON KINGS.
[Works in the Polish language are marked (P.); works in the Russian (iJ.).]
I. BIBLIOGRAPHY.
Finkelj L. Bibliography of Polish History. Lemberg. 1891-1906. (P.)
II. ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS.
Catharine II. Works. Edited by A. N. Pypin. Vols, i-xii. St Petersburg. 1901 sqq.
(jB. and French.)
E. N. Documents relating to the Moscovite rule in Poland from 1734. Cracow.
1904. (P.)
Journal (Sbornik) of the Imperial Russian Historical Society. St Petersburg.
1867 sqq. {R., French and German.)
Korwin, S. Materials for the history of the last century of the Polish Republic.
Cracow. 1890. (P.)
Kurakin, J. A. The eighteenth century. Moscow. 1904 sqq. (iJ. and French.)
[A collection of historical documents.]
Moszczynski, A. Memoirs relating to the history of Poland in the last years of the
reign of Augustus III. Cracow. 1888. (P.)
Peter the Great. Papers and correspondence. St Petersburg. 1887 sqq. (iJ.)
Raczynski, E. Picture of the Polaks and of Poland in the eighteenth century.
19 vols. Posen. 1840-4. (P.)
Radziwill, Prince C. S. Correspondence^ 1744-90. Cracow. 1898. (P.)
Letters, 1761-90. Warsaw. 1906. (P.)
Sapieha, family of. Archivum Domus Sapiehanae. Lemberg. 1892 sqq. (Latin
and P.)
Solov'eff, S. M. History of Russia. Vols, xviii-xx. St Petersburg. 1895 sqq. {B.)
Stanislaus II Poniatowski. M^moires secrets et inedits. Leipzig. 1862.
m. CONTEMPORARY OR NEARLY CONTEMPORARY WRITINGS.
A. Augustus II.
Augustus II. Beschreibung was zu Krakau vor und nach der Kronung Frederici
Augusti vorgezogen. [Dresden ? 1697.] Italian version. Rome. 1698.
Manifest zur Unterstiitzung der freyen Wahl eines Koniges in Pohlen,
1697. [1697.]
Relation aus dem Konigi-eich Polen... anno 1697. [Dresden.?] 1697.
Bibliography. 879
B. Augustus III.
Augustus III. Das mit Cron und Scepter beschaiftigte Pohlen, oder eigentliche
Nachricht wie es bey die Wahl eines neuen Konigs in Pohlen pfleget geschehen
zu werden. Dresden. 1733.
De prospera electione Regis Poloniae... 1733 peracta. [1733.]
Drey Schreiben die jetzige Confoederaten in Pohlen betreffende. Warsaw.
1741.
Griindlichste Nachricht von der rechtmassigeu Wahl Augusts des III zum
Konige von Pohlen. Dresden. 1734.
Historische und politische Betrachtungen uber die gegenwartigen pohlnischen
Begebenheiten. Leipzig. 1733-4.
Pacta conventa August! Ill commentario perpetuo illustrata a G. Lengvich.
Leipzig. 1763.
Justin, J. H. La vie et le caractere de M. le Comte de Briihl. [Frankfort.''] 1760.
C. Stanislaus Les2cztnski.
Mansteinj C. H. von. Memoires sur la Russie, 1727 jusqu'a 1740. Amsterdam.
1771. New edn. Paris. 1860. English versions : London. 1770 and 1773.
Potockij T. Lettera a sua Santita Papa Clemente XII [on the election of Stanislaus
Leszczynski as King of Poland]. 1733.
Manifeste [10 October, 1733, vindicating the election of Stanislaus I]. [Rome ?]
1833. {Fr. and Ital.)
Schreiben an den Konig Stanislaum [on the affairs of Poland]. Konigsberg.
1735.
Stanislaus I Leszczynski. CEuvres. Paris. 1763.
Commerce de lettres au sujet de la Diete d'election et des proclamations de
Stanislas Leszczynski et de I'EIecteur de Saxe. 1734.
Declaratio ullitatis electionis Stanislai facta... 14 Sept. 1733. [1733.]
Histoire de Stanislas I. [BydeC***.] Frankfort. 1740. English edition:
London. 1741.
Lettre du Roi de Pologne ou il raconte la mani^re dont il est sorti de Dantsic,
etc. The Hague. [1734.] English version : London, same date.
Relation exacte de ce qui s'est passe au sujet de 1' election du Comte Stanislas
Leszczynski. [Warsaw. 1733.]
The free opinion of King Stanislaus. [A political pamphlet published from
the original text by A. Rembourki.] Warsaw. 1903. {P.)
The true and cogent reasons which induced the Confederated Poles to dis-
approve the pretended election of Stanislaus Leszczynski. London. 1734.
Universaux publics au nom du Roy de Pologne. [Rome i 1733 ?] {French
and Italian.)
Tarlo, A. . Excerptum literarum ad P. Clementem XII [asking for his support of
the election of Stanislaus Leszczynski]. [Rome .''] 1734. {Latin and Italian.)
Tarlo, J. Epistola in risposta al Conte Poniatowski che lo consigliava a sotto-
mettersi all' Elettore de Sassonia, [Rome.'' 1734.^]
IV. LATER WORKS.
A. General.
Gawronsky, F. History of the Polish and Cossack Guerrilla bands in the eighteenth
century. Lemberg. 1899. (P.)
Heyking, C. H. Aus Polens und Kurlands letzten Tagen. Berlin. 1897.
880 Poland under the Saxon Kings.
Roepellj R. Polen um die Mitte des xviii Jahrhunderts. Gotha. 1874.
Sokolowski, A. Illustrated History of Poland. Vol. in. Vienna. 1896-1900. (P.)
Szymanowskij O. K. Beitrage zur Geschichte des Adels in Polen. Zurich. 1884.
Titoff, T. J. The Russian Orthodox Church in Poland in the seventeenth and
eighteenth centuries. Kieff. 1905. (i2.)
B. Augustus II.
Augustus II. History of the reign of Augustus II from the death of John III to the
invasion of Charles XII. Posen. 1866. (P.)
Bastard, L. de. Negociations de I'Abbe Polignac en Pologne concernant I'election
du Prince de Conti comme Roi de Pologne. Auxerre. 1864.
Chomentowski, W. The family of the Hetman Jablonowski. Warsaw. 1880. (P.)
Conradi, M. Lebens- und Regierungs-Geschichte Augusti 11. Leipzig. 1797*
Haake, P. Konig August der Starke. Munich. 1902.
Die Wahl Augusts des Starken. Historische Vierteljahrsheft. Jahrg. xvii.
Freiburg i. B. 1906.
HallendorfF, C. Konung Augusts politik &ren 1700-1. Upsala. 1898.
Jarochowski, K. History of the reign of Augustus II from the intervention of
Charles XII to the election of Stanislaus Leszczynski. Posen. 1874. (P.)
History of the reign of Augustus II from the election of Stanislaus Leszczynski
to the battle of Pultawa. Posen. 1890. (P.)
Otwinowski, E. History of Poland under Augustus II from 1697 to 1728. Cracow.
1849. (P.)
Theiner, A. Geschichte der Riickkehr der regierenden Hauser Braunschweig n.
Sachsen in den Schooss d. Kathol. Kirche im 18. Jahrh. £insiedeln. 1843.
[With documents.]
Wagner, G. Die Beziehungen Augusts des Starken zu seinen Standen. 1694-1700.
Leipzig. 1903.
Waliszewski, K. Marysienka. Paris. 1898. English edition. London, same year.
C. War of the Polish Sitccession, 1733-4.
Bain, R. N. The Pupils of Peter the Great. Chap. vi. London. 1897.
fiantuish-Kamensky. Biographies of the Russian Generalissimos. St Petersburg.
1840. (iJ.)
Des Reauz, Marchioness. Le Roi Stanislas et Marie Leszczynski. Paris. 1895.
Halem, G. A. von. Lebensbeschreibung des Feldmarschalls B. C. Grafen von
Miinnich. Oldenburg. 1803. French version : Paris. 1807.
Mono Rajavamsa Siddhi, Prince of Siam. The War of the Polish Succession.
Oxford. 1901.
D. Augustus III and the Czartorysct.
Adelung, J. C. Leben und Character des Grafens von Briihl. Gottingen. 1760-4.
English version. London. [1765 ?]
Dembicky, L. Pulawy. Vol. i. Lemberg. 1887.
Kitowecz, J. The history of manners and customs in the reign of Augustus III.
Lemberg. 1883. (P.)
Kollontaj, H. The state of enlightenment during the last years of the reign of
Augustus III, 1760-60. Posen. 1840. (P.)
Krawshar, A. The feud of Konopki with the city of Thorn, 1742^66. Cracow.
1896. (P.)
[See also bibliographies to Chaps. V and VIII.']
881
CHAPTER VIII.
THE WAR OF THE AUSTRIAN SUCCESSION.
(1) THE PRAGMATIC SANCTION.
I. Contemporary Authorities and Documents.
Chronologisclies Verzeichniss der osterreich. Staatsvertrage. i. Die ost. Staatsv.
von 1526-1723. Von L. Bittner. Vienna. 1903.
Hoefler, L. Der Congress von Soissons nacb den Instructionen des Kaiserlichen
Cabinets. Vienna. 1876.
Instructions donne'es aux ambassadeurs de France. Autriche. Edited by A. Sorel.
Paris. 1890.
Oesterreichische Staatsvertrage mit England. Bearb. von A. F. Pribram. Vol. i.
1626-1748. Innsbruck. 1907.
Preussische Staatschriften a. d. Regierungszeit Friedrichs II. Vol. i. 1740-6. Vol. ii.
1746-56. Bearb. von R. Koser. Publ. by the Berlin Academy. Berlin.
1877-86.
Roussetj C. Recueil Historique d'actesj negociations etc. depuis la paix d'Utrecht
jusqu'en 1748. The Hague. 1762.
II. Later Works.
Aragon, M. La Compagnie d'Ostende et le Grand Commerce en Belgique au debut
du xviii"" siecle. Annales des Sciences Politiques. Paris. March, 1901.
Arneth, A. Ritter von. Eugen von Savoyen. Allgemeine Deutsche Biographie.
Vol. VI. Leipzig. 1877.
Karl VI, romisch-deutscher Kaiser. Allgemeine Deutsche Biographie. Vol.
XV. Leipzig. 1882.
Prinz Eugen. Vol. iii. Vienna. 1864.
Bachmann, A. Die Pragmatische Sanction und die Erbfolgeordnung Leopold I's.
Vienna. 1894.
Beer, A. Zur Geschichte der Politik Karl's VI. Historische Zeitscbrift. 1886.
Broglie, Due de. Le cardinal de Fleury et la Pragmatique imperiale. Revue
Historique. Paris. 1882.
Dnllinger, J, Die Handels-Kompagnieen Oesterreichs nacb dem Oriente u. nacb
Ostindien in der ersten Halfte der 18. Jahrh. Part ii. Zeitschr. fiir Sonial- u.
Wirthschaftsgesch. Vol. vii. Part i. Weimar. 1899.
Elvert, C. de. Zur Oesterreichischen Verwaltuugsgeschichte. Briinn. 1886.
Erdmannsdorffer, B. Deutsche Geschichte 1648-1740. (Allg. Gesch. in Einzeldarst.)
Vol. n. Berlin. 1881.
Flassan, G. de R. de. Histoire de la diplomatie Franipaise. Vol. v. Paris. 1811.
C. M. H. VI. CH, viii. 56
882 The War of the Austrian Succession.
Forster, F. Die Hofe und Cabinette Buropes im 18. Jahrh. Vols, i and ii (with
documents). Potsdam. 1835. [Charles VI and his government.]
Haussonville^ Comte de. La Reunion de la Lorraine a la France. Vol. iv. Paris.
1860.
Hertz, G. B. England and the Ostend Company. English Historical Review.
Vol. XXII. April, 1907.
Huisman, M. La Belgique Commerciale sous I'Empereur Charles VI. La Com-
pagnie d'Ostende. Brussels and Paris. 1902.
Philipp, A. August der Starke und die pragmatische Sanktion. (Leipziger histor.
Abh. II.) Leipzig. 1908.
Stefanovi6-Vilovsky, T. Ritter von. Belgrad unter der Regierung Kaiser Karls VI,
1717-39. Vienna. 1908.
(2) PRUSSIA UNDER FREDERICK WILLIAM L
I. Sources.
Acta Borussica. Denkmaler der Preussischen Staatsverwaltung im 18. Jahrhundert.
Hrsgbn. von der Koniglichen Akademie der Wissenschaften in Berlin. Vols,
i-xvi. Berlin. 1892, etc.
II. General
Koser, R. Konig Friedrich der Grosse. Vol. i. 3rd edn. Stuttgart and Berlin.
1904.
Ranke, L. von. Zwolf Biicher Preussischer Geschichte. Books v and vi. Sammtl.
Werke. Vols, xxvii, xxvin. Leipzig. 1874.
III. Biographical.
Koser, R. Friedrich der Grosse als Kronprinz. Stuttgart. 1886.
Lavisse, E. La jeunesse du grand Frederic. Paris. 1891.
Linnebach, R. Konig Friedrich Wilhelm I und Fiirst Leopold I zu Anhalt-Dessau.
Berlin. 1907.
IV. Public Economy, Administration etc.
Beheim-Schwarzbach, M. HohenzoUernsche Colonisationen. Leipzig. 1874.
Riedel, A. F. Der brandenburgisch-preussische Staatshaushalt in den beiden
letzten Jahrhunderten. Berlin. 1866.
Schmoller, G. Umrisse und Untersuchungen zur Verfassungs-, Verwaltungs- und
Wii-thschaftsgeschichte besonders des Preussischen Staates im 17. und 18.
Jahrhundert. Leipzig. 1898.
V. Army.
Lehmann, M. Werbung, Wehrpflicht und Beurlaubung im Heere Friedrich
Wilhelms I. Historische Zeitschrift. Vol. lxvii.
Schultz, W. von. Die preussischen Werbungen unter Friedrich Wilhelm I und
Friedrich dem Grossen bis zum Beginn des Siebenjahrigen Krieges, mit beson-
derer Beriicksichtigung Mecklenburg-Schwerins. Dargestellt uach den Acten
des Grossherzoglichen Geh. und Hauptarchivs zu Schwerin. Schwerin. 1887.
VI. Ecclesiastical Affairs.
Parisetj G. L'^tat at les eglises en Prusse sous Frederic Guillaume I. Paris. 1897.
Bibliography. 883
(3) THE WAR IN GERMANY AND THE NETHERLANDS.
I. Documents and Contempobaby Authorities.
[Unpuhlished documents are marked *.]
Arg^enson, Marquis de. Memoires. Published by the Societe de I'Histoire de
France. Paris. 1859-67.
Beer, A. Holland und der Oesterreichische Erbfolgekrieg. Archiv fiir Oester-
reichische Geschichte. Vol. xi.vi. Vienna.
Die Friede von Aachen. Archiv fiir (Esterreichische Geschichte. Vol. xlvii.
Vienna.
♦Belleisle, Due de. Memoires. 6 vols. In Bibliotheque Nationale, Paris.
Charles VII. — Correspondenz Karls VII mit Graf von Seinsheim. Edited by
K. T. von Heigel. Munich. 1878.
Tagebuch Kaisers Karl VII. Edited by K. T. von Heigel. Munich. 1883.
Chevrier, F. A. Vie politique et militaire du Marechal due de Belleisle. The
Hague. 1752.
Croy-Sobre, Prince de. Memoires. Nouvelle Revue retrospective. Paris. 1894.
Espagnac, Baron de. Journal Plistorique de la campagne en 1746. The Hague. 1747.
Campagne de I'armee du roi en 1747. The Hague. 1747.
Journal des campagnes du roij 1744-7. Liege. 1748.
Histoire de Maurice, Comte de Saxa. Paris. 1776.
Frederick II. HistQire de mon temps. (2nd edn.) Berlin. 1775.
Politisehe Correspondenz. Berlin. 1879 etc.
Gentleman's Magazine. 1743-8. [Especially 1743 for Dettingen.J
Grimoard, Comte de. Lettres et Memoires du Marechal de Saxe. Paris. 1794.
Historical Manuscripts Commission. Chequers Coui-t mss. xvith Repoii:. 1900.
Montagu House mss. xvith Report. 1899.
Trevor mss. xivth Report. 1896.
Stopford Saekville mss. Vol. i. ivrth Report. 1904.
Weston Underwood mss. xth Report. 1896.
Instructions aux Ambassadeurs de la France. Autriche. Edited by A. Sorel.
Paris. 1890.
Baviere, etc. Edited by A. Lebon. Paris. 1899.
Lowendahl, Marshal de. — Leben und Thaten des Grafen von Lowendahl. Leipzig.
1749.
Louis XV. Correspondance avec le Marechal d« Noailles. Edited by C. Rousset.
Paris. 1866.
Mamillon. Histoire de la derniere guerre de Boheme. Amsterdam. 1760.
*Military Auxiliary Expeditions. Public Record Office. London. [Despatches of
Cumberland, Ligonier, etc.]
Moser, J. J. Staathistorie Deutschlands unter Kaiser Karl VII. Jena. 1748.
Noailles, Due de. Memoires. Edited by Abbe' Millot. Collection Miehaud et
Poujoulat. 3rd series. Vol. x. Coll. Petitot. Vols, lxxi-lxxiv. Paris.
1828-9.
Fodewils, Count von. Berichte uber den Wiener Hof 1747-8. Vienna. 1850.
Ranft. Leben und Thaten des beriihmten Grafen, Moritz von Sachsen. Leipzig.
1746.
Remarks on the Military Operations of the English and French Armies in 1747.
London. 1760.
Rolt, R. Historical Memoirs of the Duke of Cumberland. Ixindon. 1767.
Spou, Baron de. Me'moires pour servir a I'histoire de I'Europe de 1740 a 1748.
Amsterdam. 1749.
CH. VIII. 66—2
884 The War of the Austrian Succession.
Valorij Louis, Marquis de. Memoires. Paris. 1820.
Van Hoey, A. Lettres et negociations 1743-4. London. 1743.
Vitzthum, Count. Maurice comte de Saxe et Marie-Josephe de Saxe dauphine de
France. Lettres et documents inedits des archives de Dresde. Leipzig. 1867.
WalpolSj Horace (Earl of Orl'ord). Letters. Vols, i and u. Oxford. 1903.
II. Later Works.
Arneth, A. Ritter von. Maria Theresa. Vols, i-iii. Vienna. 1868-79.
Arvers, A. Guerre de la succession d'Autriche. Paris. 1893.
Ballantyne, A. Lord Carteret. A political biography. London. 1887.
Brackenbury, Colonel C. B. Frederick II. (Military Biographies.) London. 1884.
Bright, J. F. Maria Theresa. (Foreign Statesmen Series. ) London. 1897.
Broglie, Due de. Frederic II et Marie Therese. Paris. 1884.
Frederic II et Louis XV. Paris. 1887.
Marie Therese Imperatrice. Paris. 1890.
Maurice de Saxe et le Marquis d'Argenson. Paris. 1893.
La Paix d'Aix la Chapelle. Paris. 1895.
Campbell-Maclachlan, A. N; William Augustus, Duke of Cumberland. London.
1876.
Coxe, W. House of Austria. 2 vols. London. 1810.
Life of Sir R. Walpole. 3 vols. London. 1798.
Memoirs of the Administration of Henry Pelham. 2 vols. London. 1829.
Droysen, J. G. Geschichte der Preussischen Politik. Vols, xi and xii. Berlin. 1855.
Faesch, G. R. Geschichte der Oesterreichischen Erbfolgekrieges von 1740-8.
Dresden. 1787.
Fortescue, J. W. History of the British Antiy. Vol. ii. London. 1897.
Grunhagen, C. Geschichte des ersten Schlesischen Krieges. Berlin. 1881.
Harris, C. Life of Lord Hardwicke. London. 1847.
Heigel, C. T. von. Karl VII, romisch-deutscher Kaiser. Allgemeine Deutsche
Biographic. Vol. xv. Leipzig. 1882.
Der CEsterreichische Erbfolgestreit und die Kaiserwahl Karl's VII. Nord-
lingen. 1877.
Jobez, A. La France sous Louis XV. Paris. 1864-73.
Lacretelle, J. C. D. de. Histoire de France pendant le xviii° siecle. Paris. 1830.
Lecky, W. E. H. History of England in the xviiith century. Vol. ii. London.
1878.
Mahon, Lord (Earl Stanhope). History of England, 1713-83. 6th edition.
Vol. III. London. 1858.
Martin, H. Histoire de France. Vol. xv. (4th edition.) Paris. 1865-60.
O'Gallaghan, J. C. The Irish Brigades in the Service of France. Glasgow. 1870.
Ogle, A. The Marquis d'Argenson. London. 1893.
Oncken, W, Das Zeitalter Friedrich's der Grossen. 2 vols. (Allg. Gesch. in
Einzeldarst.) Berlin. 1880-2.
Pajol, Comte de. Les Guerres sous Louis XV. Vol. ii (Germany). Vol. iii
(Flanders and Italy). Paris. 1881-7.
Itanke, L. von. Friedrich II. Allgemeine Deutsche Biographie. Vol. vii. Leipzig.
1878.
Zwolf Bucher Preussischer Geschichte. Sammtl. Werke. Vols, xxv-xxix.
Leipzig. 1874.
Raumer, F. von. Konig Friedrich II und seine Zeit. (1740-69.) Leipzig. 1836.
Saint-Rend Taillandier. Maurice de Saxe. Paris. 1865.
Sindty, Marquis de. Vie du Mardchal de Lijwendahl. Paris. 1867.
Skrine, F. H. Fontenoy. London. 1006.
Bibliography. 885
Townshend, Colonel C. V. F. Life of Marquess Townshend. London. 1901.
Tuttle, H. History of Prussia, 1740-66. London. 1888.
Ward, A. W. England and Hanover. Oxford. 1899.
Weber, O. von. Moritz, Graf von Sachsen. 1853.
Wolf, A. Oesterreich unter Maria Theresa. Berlin. 1884.
Zevort, E. Le Marquis d'Argenson et le ministere des affaires etrangeres, 1744-7.
Paris. 1880.
(4) ITALY.
I. Contemporary Authorities, Documents etc.
Costa de Beauregard, Marquis C. A. de. Memoires historiques sur la maison royale
de Savoie jusqua 1796. 3 vols. Turin. 1816.
Grosley, P. J. Memoires sur les campagnes d'ltalie en 1745 et 1746. Amsterdam.
1777.
Instructions donnees aux ambassadeurs de France. Naples et Parme. Edited by
J. Reinach. Paris. 1893.
Savoie. Edited by Count Horrich de Beaucaire. Paris. 1899.
Mailly, Chevalier de. Histoire de la republique de Genes jusqu'a present. Paris.
1742.
Mecatti, G. M. Diario deUa guerra d' Italia. Naples. 1748.
Guerra di Genova. Naples. 1749.
Muratori, L. A. Annali d' Italia. Vol. xii. Monaco. 1764.
Pezay, Marquis de. Histoire des campagnes du Mare'chal de Maillebois en Italie
pendant les annees 1745-6. Paris. 1775.
Recueil des traites et conventions diplomatiques concernant I'Autriche et I'ltalie
(1703-1859). Paris. 1869.
Traites publics de la maison de Savoie avec les puissances etrangeres depuis la paix
de Cateau-Cambresis. Turin. 1854.
II. Later Works.
Armstrong, E. Elizabeth Farnese. London. 1892.
Ayala, D. de. Memorie Storico-militari dal 1734 al 1815. Naples. 1836.
Carutti, D. Storia del regno di Carlo Emmanuele III. Turin. 1869.
Dumas, A. Borboni di Napoli. Naples. 1864-7.
Morris, H. Operations militaires dans les Alpes pendant la guerre de succession
d'Autriche. Paris. 1886.
Perrero, D. La casa di Savoia negli Studi diplomatic! del duca di Broglie. 1888.
Pinelli, F. A. Storia militare del Piemonte. Turin. 1868.
Saluces, Comte A. de. Histoire militaire du Pie'mont. Turin. 1818.
(5) THE NAVAL WAR.
I. Documents and Contemporary Works,
\Unpublished documents are marked *.]
♦Admiralty Papers. Secretary's Letters at Public Record OflSce, London.
Ships' Logs at Public Record Oifice, London.
Ducane mss. Historical mss. Commission, xvith Report. 1905.
Gentleman's Magazine, 1744^8. [Esp. for the Matthews-Lestock controversy.]
(Lestock, Vice- Admiral.) Defence to Court Martial. 1746.
886 The War of the Austrian Succession.
Matthews, Admiral. Authentic Letters from... relating to the expedition to the
Mediterranean. 1745.
Original Letters and Papers between Admiral Matthews and Vice-Admiral
Lestock. 1744.
IL Later Works.
Beatson, R. Naval and Military Memoirs. Vol. i. 2nd edn. London. 1804.
Burrows, Montagu, Captain. Life of Lord Hawke. 2nd edn. London. 1896.
Chevalier, E., Captain. Histoire de la Marine Fran^aise jusqu'au traite de paix
de 1763. Paris. 1902.
Colomb, P. H., Admiral. Naval Warfare. 2nd edn. London. 1895.
Guerin, L. Histoire Maritime de la France. Paris. 1849.
Lacour-Gruyet, G. La Marine Fran^aise sous le regno de Louis XV. Paris. 1902,
Laird Clowes, Sir W. History of the Royal Navy. Vol. iii. London. 1898.
Mahan, A. T., Captain, U.S.N. Influence of Sea Power upon History. Loudon.
1889 (and later editions).
Types of Naval OflScers. London. 1902.
Troude, O. Batailles Navales de la France. Paris. 1867.
\_See also Bibliographies to Ohaptera II, V, XI, X77.]
887
CHAPTER IX.
THE SEVEN YEARS' WAR.
L ORIGINAL AUTHORITIES.
Frederick II. Politische Correspondenz Friedrichs des Grossen. Vols, xn and
following. Berlin. 1884, etc.
Histoire de la Guerre de Sept Ans. (Euvres de Frederic le Grand.
Vols. IV and v. Berlin. 1847.
Preussische Staatschriften a. d. Regierungszeit Friedrichs II. Vol. iii : Der Beginn
des Siebenjahr. Krieges. Bearb. von O. Krauske. Publ. by the Berlin
Academy. Berlin. 1892.
Preussische n. osterreichische Acten zur Vorgeschichte d. Siebenj. Krieges.
Bearb. von G. B. Volz u. G. Kiintzel. Public, a. d. k. preuss. Staatsarchiven.
Vol. Lxxiv. Leipzig. 1899.
An original Journal of the Seven Years' War by Count St Paul, with plans of
battles, of which the portion to be published covers the first two years of the
war, will shortly appear.
II. GENERAL.
Arneth, Ritter A. von. Maria Theresia und der Siebenjahrige Krieg. 2 vols.
Vienna. 1875.
Daniels, E. Ferdinand von Braunschweig. Preussische Jahrbucher. Vols, lxxvii-
LXXXII.
Delbriick, H. Uber die Verschiedenheit der Strategic Friedrichs und Napoleons. In
Historische und politische Aufsatze. 2nd edn. Berlin. 1907.
Lloyd, General. History of the late War in Germany. 2 vols. London. 1766-
90. Tr. Continued by G. F. von Tempelhoff under the title of Geschichte
des Siebenjahrigen Krieges. 6 vols. Berlin. 1783-1801.
Masslowski. The Seven Years' War from the Russian point of view. 3 vols. (In
Bussian.) German Translation, by A. von Drygalski. Berlin. 1889-93.
Prussian General StaflF. — Preussisches Generalstabswerk uber den Siebenjahrigen
Krieg. 6 vols. Berlin. 1901.
Schafer, A. Gteschichte des Siebenjahrigen Krieges. 2 vols, in 3 parts. Berlin.
1867-74.
Waddington, R. La Guerre de Sept Ans. Histoire diplomatique et militaire.
Vols. i-iv. Paris. 1899-1907.
888 The Seven Years' War.
ill. THE ORIGIN OF THE WAR.
Daniels, E. Friedrich der Grosse und Maria Theresia am Vorabend des Sieben-
jahi-igen Krieges. Preussische Jahrbucher. Vol. o.
Delbriick, H. Der Ursprung des Siebenjahrigen Krieges. In Erinnerimgenj
Aufsatze und Reden. Bei-lin. 1905.
Koser, H. Zum Ursprung des Siebenjahrigen Krieges. Hist. Zeitschr. lxxiv-vii.
Lehmann, M. Friedrich der Grosse und der Ursprung des Siebenjahrigen Krieges.
Leipzig. 1894.
Mitchell, Sir Andrew. Ueber den Ausbruch des Siebenjahr. Krieges. Aus M.'s
ungedruckten Memoiren mitgeth. von L. von Ranke. Sammtl. Werke. Vols.
i/i, Lii. Leipzig. 1888.
Naude', A. Beitrage zur Entstehungsgeschichte des Siebenjahr. Krieges. Repr.
from Forschungen zur Brandenb. u. Preuss. Gesch. viii, 2 ; ix, 1. Leipzig.
1896-6. [Contains a bibliography of the publications referring to the con-
troversy up to date.]
(Vitzthum von Eckstadt, Count C. F.) Die Geheimnisse des Sachsischen Cabinets.
2 vols. Stuttgart. 1866.
IV. PARTICULAR MILITARY OPERATIONS.
(Jn chronological order.)
Grawe, C. Die Entwickelung des preussischen Feldzugsplans im Friihjahr 1767.
Berlin. 1903.
Gerber, P. Die Schlacht bei Leuthen am 6 Dezember 1757. Berlin. 1901.
Immich, M. Die Schlacht bei Zorndorf am 25 August 1758. Berlin. 1893.
Mollvo, L. Die Capitulation von Maxen am 21 Nov. 1759. (Diss.) Marburg. 1893.
Daniels, E. Zur Schlacht von Torgau am 3 November 1760. Berlin. 1886.
[See also Bibliographies to Chapters X, XI, XIU(ll), XIX.]
889
CHAPTEE X.
RUSSIA UNDER ANNE AND ELIZABETH.
[Works in the Russian language are marked (22.), works in Polish (P.).]
I. BIBLIOGRAPHIES.
The following systematic descriptious of, or guides or indexes to, Russian historical
periodical puhlications may be consulted (all of them are JR.): Ruskaya Starina
(Russian Historical Review), St Petersburg, 1885-9; Istorichesky Vyestnik (His-
torical Messenger), St Petersburg, 1891 ; Russky Arkhiv (Russian Archives),
Moscow,1892; Shornik and Chteniia Imp. Russk. Istoritsch. Obschtschestra (Maga-
zine or Journal, and Readings, of the Imperial Russian Historical Society),
Moscow, 1883 and 1889.
See also :
Ikonnikoff, V. Essay towards a Russian Historiography. Moscow. 1889. (JR.)
Mezhoff, V. Russian historical bibliography. St Petersburg. 1881. (iJ.) fiiblio-
graphie des livres russes d'histoire. St Petersburg. 1892-3.
II. COLLECTIONS OF ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS.
Bestuzheff, Count Alexis. Letters of Count A. Bestuzheff to Count M. Vorontsoff,
1744-60. Vorontsoff Archives, Vols, i, n. Moscow. 1870 sqq. (R.)
Botta, Marquis de. Letters relating to the conspiracy of the Marquis de Botta.
Vorontsoff Arch. Vol. ii. Moscow. 1870 sqq. (R. ajai French.)
Catharine II. Early correspondence, 1744-58. Sbornik. Vol. vii. St Petersburg.
1881 sqq. (French.)
Dickens, Guy. Despatches from St Petersburg. Record OflSce, For. State Pap.
Russia.
Elizabeth, Empress of Russia. From the papers of the Elizabethan Ministerial
Conference. Vorontsoff Archives. Vol. iii. Moscow. 1870 sqq.
Elizabeth, Princess of Zerbst. Relation [of her residence in Russia, 1744-6].
Sbornik. Vol. vii. St Petersburg. 1881 sqq.
Filippoff, A. N. Papers of the Cabinet of Ministers of the Empress Anne. St
Petersburg. 1898. (iJ.)
Finch, Edward. Despatches from Russia, 1740-2. Shornik. Vols, lxxxv and xci.
St Petersburg. 1881 sqq.
Frederick II of Prussia. Politische Correspondenz, 1740-62. Vols. i-xx. Berlin.
1879-1900.
890 Russia under Anne and Elizabeth.
Geffro^j M. A. Recueil des instructions donnees aux ambassadeurs de France
depuis les traites de Westphalie. Paris. 1884.
Hanburjr Williams, Sir. Despatches from Russia, 1755-8. Record Office, Foreign
State Papers, Russia.
Herrmann, B. Diplomatic documents relating to the history of Russia from 1721
to 1744 from the Saxon archives. Sbornik. Vols, iii, v and vi. St Petersburg.
1868-71. (-fl. and German.)
Diplomatic documents relating to the history of Russia from 1721 to 1744
from the Berlin archives. Sbornik. Vol. xv. St Petersburg. 1876.
Hyndford, John, Earl of. Despatches from the Russian Court, 1746-8. Record
Office, Foreign State Papers, Russia. Also in Sbornik. Vol. cm. St
Petersburg. 1881 sqq.
Kurakin, J. A., Prince. TTie Eighteenth Century. Moscow. 1904 sqq. [A
collection of diplomatic documents in R. and French.]
La Chetardie, J. J. Trotti, Marquis de. Despatches, 1740-2. Vols, lxxxvi, xcii,
xovi, a;nd c. St Petersburg. 1893-7. {French.)
The a£Fair of the Marquis de la Chetardie. Vorontsoff Archives. Vol. i.
Moscow. 1870, etc. (JK. and French.)
Mardefeld, Baron G. von. Relationen [of affairs in Russia, 1721-38]. Sbornik,
Vol. XV. St Petersburg. 1875. {German.)
Despatches from Russia, 1739-48. Record Office, Foreign State Papers,
Russia. {German.)
Miinnich, B. C. vou. Count. Reports issued from 1736 to 1739. Issued by Russian
General Staff. Vol. x. St Petersburg. 1892 sqq. {B. and German.)
The Stavukhani Campaign. General orders, etc. Issued by Russian General
Staff. Vol. II. St Petersburg. 1892 sqq. {R. and German.)
Tagebuch, 1735-9. Leipzig. 1843.
Nepluyeff, J. J. Despatches from Constantinople, 1725-40. St Petersburg.
1893. (ie.)
Rondeau, Claudius. Despatches from Russia, 1728-39. Collections of Russ. Hist.
Soc. Vols. Lxvi, Lxxvi, and lxxx. St Petersburg. 1889-92.
Russian Government in Poland, from 1734, Documents relating to the doings of the.
Cracow. 1904. (P.)
Shuvaloff, J. J. From the papers of A. A. Shuvaloff, 1756-61. Sbornik. Vol. ix.
St Petersburg. 1881, etc. (iJ.)
Tyrawley, Viscount. Despatches from Russia. Record Office, Foreign State Papers,
Russia.
Wych, Sir Cyril. Despatches from Russia. Record Office, Foreign State Papers,
Russia.
III. CONTEMPORARY OR NEARLY CONTEMPORARY WRITINGS.
Bolotoff, A. Me'moires, 1738-90. St Petersburg. 1871. {B.)
Copia Schreibens von S' Russisch Kays. Maj. an S" Konigliche Majestat in Preussen
wegen die Schlesischen Sachen [dated 16 Dec, 1740]. 1741.
Manstein, Baron C. H. von. Memoires historiques sur la Russie, 1727-44.
Amsterdam. 1771. English editions. London. 1770 and 1856.
Rondeau, Mrs. Letters from a lady who resided some years [1728-40] in Russia.
London. 1777.
Thoughts, deliberate, on the system of our late treaties with Hesse-Cassel and Russia
in regard to Hanover. London. 1756.
Bibliography. 891
Ursachen, die, des ungliicklichen Gefolges des gegenwartigen Krieges mit Frankreich
auf Seiten Englands und die nachtheiligen Folgen der AUianzen des letztern mit
Russland, etc. Gotha. 1767.
View, an impartial, of the conduct of the M ly in regard to the engagements
entered into with Russia, etc. London. 1756.
Vorontsoff, Prince A. R. Notes sur ma vie. Vorontsoif Archives. Vol. v.
Moscow. 1870, etc.
Zustand, der gegenwartige, des russischen Monarchic, etc. Erfurt. 1749.
IV. MONOGRAPHS AND LATER WORKS.
Bain, R. N. The Daughter of Peter the Great. London. 1899.
Peter IIL London. 1902.
The Pupils of Peter the Great. London. 1897.
Bantuish-Kamensky, D. N. Biographies of the Russian Generalissimos. St
Petershurg. 1840. (JS.)
Danielson, J. R. Die nordische Frage in den Jahren 1746-61. Helsingfors. 1888.
Dolgoruki, Prince K. Count A. J. Osterman. St Petersburg. 1841. (iJ.)
Genishta, V. J. and Borisevich, A. T. History of the 30th Ingrion dragoon regiment
from 1704. St Petershurg. 1904 sqq.
Halem, G. A. von. Lebensbeschreibung des Feldmarschalls B. C. Grafen von
Miinnich. Oldenburg. 1803. French edition : Paris. 1807.
Herrmann, E. Geschichte des russischen Staates. Vols, iv and v. (Gesch. d. europ.
Staaten.) Hamburg. 1849-53.
Karge, P. Die russisch-osterreichische AUianz von 1746. Gottingen. 1887.
Kochulinsky, A. A. Count Osterman and the proposed partition of Turkey, 1735-9.
Odessa. 1899. (iJ.)
Kostomaroff, N. J. Russische Geschichte in Biographien. (German Translation.)
Leipzig. 1889, etc.
Masslowski, Colonel. Der Siebenjahrige Krieg nach russischer Darstellung. Berlin.
1888-92.
Zur Geschichte der russisch-osterreichische Kooperation im Feldzuge von
1769. Hannover. 1888.
Panchulidzeff, S. History of the Russian Horse Guards from 1724, etc. St
Petersburg. 1899-1901. (iJ.)
Rambaud, A. N. Histoire de la Russie. Paris. 1878. E. Tr. by L. B. Lang.
2 vols. London. 1879.
Shchepkin, E. Lectures on Russian history in the eighteenth century. St
Petersburg. 1905. {B.)
SoloviefF, S. M, History of Russia. Vols, iviii-xxii. St Petersburg. 1896,
etc. (iJ.)
Titlinoff, B. V. The Government of the Empress Anne and its relations with the
Orthodox Church. Wilna. 1905. (iJ.)
Vandal, A. Une ambassade franfaise en Orient sous Louis XV. La mission du
Marquis de Villeneuve, 1728^1. Paris. 1887.
Louis XV et !]&isabeth de Russie. Paris. 1892.
Vasilchikoff, A. A., Prince. The Family of the Razumovskies. Moscow.
1868. (JR.)
Waliszewski, K. La Derniere des RomanoflFs. Paris. 1902.
L'H^ritage de Pierre le Grand. Paris. 1900.
892
CHAPTER XL
THE REVERSAL OF ALLIANCES AND THE FAMILY
COMPACT.
I. MANUSCRIPTS.
The chief manuscript collections to be consulted for this chapter are : In Paris:
Archives du Ministere des Affaires iltrangeres ; 1° Correspondance politique (Angle-
tevre, Allemagne, Autriche-Hongrie, Espagne, Prusse^ Russie^ Saxe, Suede, etc..) ;
2° Memoires et documents. — Archives nationales : Correspondance secrete de
Louis XV aveo de Broglie, Tercier, etc. — Bibliotheque nationale, departeraent des
manuscrits: Correspondance officielle et privee de Choiseul et de Bernis. — Ibid.
Papiers de Beliardi. — In London: British Museum: Addit. mss. Newcastle Papers.
— In Berlin: Konigliches geheimes Staatsarchiv. — In Vienna: Kaiserliches und
Konigliches Haus- Hof- und Staatsarchiv. — In Spain: Archivo histdrico nacioual
and Archivo general de Simaucas.
II. PRINTED DOCUMENTS.
Aranda, Count. Correspondencia diplomatica del Conde de Aranda embajador cerca
del rey de Polonia 1760-2. (Coleccion de documentos ineditos para la historia
de Espafia, vol. oviii, cix.) 2 volsl Madrid. 1893-4.
Broglie, A., Due de. Le Secret du Roi. Correspondance secrete de Louis XV
avec ses agents diplomatiques 1762-74. Paris. 1878.
Bruhl, Count. Des Grafen Briihl Korrespondenz mit dem Freiherm von Riedesel.
Beitrag zur Geschichte des Siebenjahrigen Krieges 1760-2. Edited by M. von
Eelking. Leipzig. 1854.
Frederick II. Politische Korrespondenz Friedrichs des Grossen. 32 vols. Berlin.
1879. {In progress. )
Hertzberg, Count E. F. von. Recueil des deductions, manifestes, declarations, traites
et autres actes et ecrits publics qui ont 4/i,6 rediges et publics pour la Cour de
Prusse, depuis I'annde 1756 jusqu'a I'annee 1790. 3 vols. Berlin. 1790-6.
Kaunitz, Prince. Correspondance secrete entre le comte W. A. Kaunitz-Rietberg,
ambassadeur imperial a Paris, et le baron Ignaz de Koch, secretaire de I'im-
peratrice Marie-Therese, 1760-2. Paris. 1899.
Louis XV. — Boutaric, E. Correspondance inedite de Louis XV. Paris. 1886.
Correspondano4 de Louis XV et du marechal de Noailles. 2 vols. Paris.
1865.
Political and confidential Correspondence oi' Louis XV. 3 vols. New York.
1808.
Bibliography. 893
Recueil des instructions donn^es aux ambassadeurs et ministres de France depuis
les traites de Westphalie jusqu'a la Revolution fran^aise. Paris. {In progress.)
Autrichej par A. Sorel ; Baviere, Palatinat et Deux-Ponts, par A, Lebon ;
Suede et Danemark, par A. Geffroy ; Naples et Parme^ par J. Reinach ;
Russia, par A. Rambaud ; Pologne, par L. Farges ; Espagne, par Morel-Fatio
et Leonardon ; Prusse, par A. Waddington.
(Vitzthum von Eclcstadt, Count.) Die Geheimnisse des Sachsischen Cabinets. 2 vols.
Stuttgart. 1866.
III. CONTEMPORARY LETTERS AND MEMOIRS,
A. France.
Aguessean, Chancelier de. Lettres. 2 vols. Paris. 1823.
Argenson, Marquis de. Journal et memoiresj publics par Rathery. 9 vols. Paris.
1869-67.
Barbier (Avocat). Journal bistorique et anecdotique du regne de Louis XV. 8 vols.
Paris. 1857.
Bernis, Cardinal de. Memoires et lettres. 2 vols. Paris. 1878.
Correspondance avec Paris-Duverney (1752-69). 2 vols. Paris and London.
1790.
Broglie, V. F., Due de. Correspondance inedite, pour servir a I'histoire de la Guerre
de Sept Ansj 1759 a 1761. 4 vols. Paris. 1903-5.
Chansonnier bistorique du xviii' Siecle. Recueil de cbansons, vaudevilles, sonnets,
epigrainmes...Publie par Emile Raunie. 10 vols. Paris. 1879-84.
Cboiseul, Due de. Memoires ecrits par lui-meme et imprimes sous ses yeux en
1778 (par Soulavie). 2 vols. Paris. 1790.
Cboiseul a Rome (1754-7). Lettres et memoires inedits, publics par le
Vicomte Maurice Boutry. Paris. 1895.
Me'moires (1719-85). Paris. 1904.
CoUe', C. Journal et Memoires (1748-72). 3 vols. Paris. 1868.
Correspondance inedite. Paris. 1864.
Correspondance de plusieurs personnages illustres de la Cour de Louis XV depuis
les annees 1746 jusques et y compris 1774. 2 vols. Paris. 1808.
Croy, Due de. Memoires inedits sur les Cours de Louis XV et de Louis XVI,
public's par le Vicomte de Groucby et P. Cottin. 4 vols. Paris. 1906-7.
Des Cars, Due. Memoires. Paris. 1890.
Duclos, C. P. Memoires Secrets. 2 vols. Paris. 1791.
Du DelFand, M"'^. Correspondance complete avec ses amis, Henault, Montesquieu,
Voltaire. Publico par M. de Lescure. 2 vols. Paris. 1886.
Correspondance complete avec la Duchesse de Cboiseul, I'abbe Barthelemy et
M. Craufurt, publiee par M. le Marquis de Saint-Aulaire. 3 vols. Paris. 1867.
Dufort, Comte de Cheverny. Me'moires. 2 vols. Paris. 1886.
Du Hausset, M"*. Me'moires. Brussels. 1825.
Esterhazy, Count V. L. Memoires (1767-97), avec une introduction par E. Daudet.
Paris. 1905.
Grimm, Raynal and Meister. Correspondance litte'raire, philosophique, et critique.
16 vols. Paris. 1877-87.
Henault, President. Me'moires. Paris. 1864.
Lauzun, Due de. Memoires. 2 vols. Paris. 1822.
Lemoine, J. Sous Louis le Bien-Aime. Correspondance amoureuse et militaire
d'un oificier pendant la Guerre de Sept Ans. Paris. 1905.
Levy, President. Journal bistorique ou fastes du regno de Louis XV, surnomme le
Bien-Aime'. 2 vols. Paris. 1766.
Luynes, Due de. Me'moires. 17 vols. Paris. 1860-6.
894 The Reversal of Alliances and the Family Compact.
Maria Theresia. Briefwechsel zwischen Kaisei'iu Maria Theresia u. Kurfurstin
Maria Antonin von Sachsen. Ed. W. Lippert. Leipzig. 1909.
Marie Leczynska. Lettres inedites au President Henault. Paris. 1886.
Marmontel, J.-F. Mdmoires. 6 vols. Paris. 1804-5.
Martange, N. B. de. Correspondance inedite, 1756-82. Paris. 1898.
Maurepas, Comte de. Memoires, par Soulavie. 4 vols. Paris. 1792.
Memoires secrets pour servir a I'histoire de la Republiqae des lettres depuis 1762
jusqu'a nos jours. ' 36 vols. London. 1777-89.
MirabeaUj Comte de. Memoires du Ministere du due d'Aiguillon at de son com-
mandement en Bretagne. Paris. 1792.
Montalembert, Marquis de. Correspondance de M. le Marquis de Montalembert,
employe par le roi de France a I'armee Suedoise (1757-61). London. 1777.
Montbarrey, Prince de. Memoires (1732-96). 3 vols. Paris. 1826-7.
Morelletj Abbe. Memoires sur le xviii" siecle et sur la Re'volution. 2 vols. Paris.
1821-3.
Narbohnej P. Journal des regnes de Louis XIV et de Louis XV (1701-74). Paris.
1866.
NivernaiSj Due de. (Euvres posthumes. 2 vols. Paris. 1807.
Pompadour^ M"" de. Correspondance. Paris. 1878.
Richelieu^ Due de. Correspondance particuliere historique du Mar^chal due de
Richelieu en 1766, 1757 et 1758 avec M. Paris-Duverney. 2 vols. London
and Paris. 1789.
Soulavie, J.-L. G. Memoires historiques et anecdotiques sur la Cour de France
pendant la favour de la Marquise de Pompadour. Paris. 1802.
Memoires du Marechal de Richelieu. 9 vols. Paris. 1790-3. [Dubious.]
Terrai, Abbe. Memoires rediges par Coquereau. London. 1776.
Thevenot, A. Correspondance inedite du prince Fran9ois-Xavier de Saxe. Paris.
1876.
TiUy, Comte A. de. Me'moires. Paris. 1858.
Toussaint, F. V. Anecdotes de la Cour de France sous le regne de Louis XV,
texte original publie par P. Fould. 2 vols. Paris. 1905.
Valori, Marquis de. Memoires des negociations du Marquis de Valori, ambassadeur
de France a la Cour de Berlin, accompagnes d'un recueil de lettres de Frederic
le Grand. 2 vols. Paris. 1820.
Vitzthum von Eckstadt, Count. Maurice comte de Saxe et Marie-Josephe de Saxe,
dauphine de France. Lettres et documents inedits. Leipzig. 1867.
Voltaire. CEuvres, edit. Beuchot. 72 vols. Paris. 1834.
B. Great Britain.
Buckinghamshire, Earl of. The Despatches and Correspondence of John, second
Earl of Buckinghamshire, ambassador to the Court of Catherine II of Russia,
1762-5. London. 1900.
Chatham, William Pitt, Earl of. Correspondence. 2 vols. London. 1838.
Lord, W. F. The Counts of St Paul : Correspondence of H. Saint Paul, British
minister at Versailles, 1772-6. Kingston. 1904.
Mitchell, Sir A. Memoirs and papers. 2 vols. London. 1850.
C. Prussia.
Frederick II. Briefe zwischen Friedrich II und Katharina von Russland. St Peters-
burg. 1877.
.— Briefwechsel Friedrichs des Grossen mit Grumbkow und Maupertuis 1731-69.
Leipzig. 1898.
(Euvres de Frederic le Grand. 30 vols. Berlin. 1846-66.
Bibliography. 895
Frederick II. Originalbriefe K. Friedrichs 11 im Kriegsarchiv zu Wien 1769-60.
Vienna. 1882.
Henckel v. Donnersmarck, Count L. A. Briefe der Bruder Friedrichs des Grossen.
Berlin. 1877.
Krauel, R. BriefwecLsel zwischen Heinrich Prinz von Freussen und Katharina II
von Russland. Berlin. 1903.
Preussische Staatsschriften aus der Regcierungszeit Konigs Friedrichs II, herausge-
geben v. J. G. Droysen, M. Duncker und H. v. Sybel. 3 vols. Berlin. 1877-92.
IV. SECONDARY WORKS,
A. General.
BonrgeoiSj E. Manuel de politique dtrangere. 2 vols. Paris. 1901.
Brunner, S. Der Humor in der Diplomatie und Regierungskunde des 18. Jahr-
hunderts. 2 vols. Vienna. 1872.
Duncker, M. Die Bildung der Koalition des Jahres 1766. Preussische Jahr-
hiicher. Vol. xlix.
Fain, Baron. Politique de tous les cabinets de 1' Europe pendant les guerres de
liOuis XV et de Louis XVI. 3 vols. Paris. 1801.
Masslowski. Der Siebenjahrige Krieg. 3 vols. Berlin. 1888-93.
Memoire historique sur la negociation de la France et de I'Angleterre depuis le
26 mars 1761 jusqu'au 20 septembre de la meme annee. Paris. 1761.
Naude, A. Beitrage zur Entstehungs-Geschichte des Siebenjahrigen Krieges. 2 vols.
Leipzig. 1895-6.
Raumer, F. V. Europa vom Ende des Siebenjahrigen bis zum Ende des Amerikan-
Krieges (1763-83). 6 vols. Berlin. 1839.
Schaefer, A. Geschichte des Siebenjahrigen Krieges. 2 vols. Berlin. 1867-74.
Segur, L. P. Politique de tous les cabinets de I'Europe pendant les regnes de
Louis XV et de Louis XVI. 3 vols. Paris. 1801.
Sorel, A. La Question d'Orient au xvin' siecle. Paris. 1889.
Stuhr, P. P. Forschungen und Erlauterungen iiber Hauptpunckte der Geschichte
des Siebenjahrigen Krieges. 2 vols. Hamburg. 1842.
Waddington, B. Louis XV et le Renversement des Alliances. Preliminaires de la
Guerre de Sept Ans (1764-6). Paris. 1896.
La Guerre de Sept Ans. Histoire diplomatique et militaire. Vol. i : Les
Debuts. Vol. II : Crefeld et Zorndorf. Vol. iii : Minden, Kunersdorf.
Vol. IV : Torgau, Facte de famille. 4 vols. Paris. 1899-1908. {In course
of publication.)
B. France.
Aubertin, Charles. L'Esprit public au xviii' siecle. Paris. 1873.
Babeau, Albert. Le village sous I'ancien regime. Paris. 1882.
— — La ville sous I'ancien regime. Paris. 1884.
La vie rurale dans I'ancienne France. Paris. 1886.
Barthe'lemy, E. M., Count de. Histoire des relations de la France et du Danemark,
1761-70. Copenhagen. 1887.
Bastard d'Estang, Vicomte de. Les Parlements de France. 2 vols. Paris. 1867,
Bersot, P. E. Etudes sur le xviii* siecle. Paris. 1865.
Bonhomme, Honore. Louis XV et sa famille. Paris. 1873.
Bourguet. Le Due de Choiseul et I'alliance espaguole. Paris. 1906.
Broo, Vicomte de. La France sous I'ancien regime. 2 vols. Paris. 1887-9.
896 The Reversal of Alliances and the Family Compact.
Broglie, A., Due de. Frdderio 11 et Louis XV. Paris. 188S.
L' Alliance autrichienne, 1756. Paris. 1897.
La paix d'Aix la Chapellej 1748. Paris. 1895.
Voltaire avant et pendant la Guerre de Sept Ans. Paris. 1898.
Calmettes, Pierre. Choiseul et Voltaire. Paris. 1902.
CampardoHj B. Madame de Pompadour a la Cour de Louis XV. Paris. 1867.
Came, Count de. La monarchie fran9aise au xvm" siecle. Paris. 1859.
Carre, H. La France sous Louis XV, Paris, (s. d.)
La Chalotais et le due d'Aiguillon. Correspondauce du chevalier de Fontette.
Paris. 1893.
Cretineau-Joly, J. A. M. Histoire religieuse, politique et litteraire de la compagnie
de Jesus. 6 vols. Paris. 1846-6.
Daubigny, E. T. Choiseul et la France d'outre-mer apres le traite de Paris.
Etude sur la politique coloniale au xvm* siecle. Paris. 1892.
Des Reaux, Marquise. Le Roi Stanislas et Marie Leczynska. Paris. 1895,
Douglas, R. B, Life and times of Madame du Barry. London. 1896.
Faguet, E. La politique comparee de Montesquieu, Rousseau et Voltaire. Paris.
1902.
Flammermont, J. Le chancelier Maupeou et les parlements. Paris. 1884.
Rapport sur les correspondances des agents diplomatiques Strangers en
France avant la Revolution. Paris. 1896.
Fleury, M. Louis XV et les petites mattresses. Paris. 1899.
Ford, J, L. The Story of du Barry. New York. 1902.
Goncourt, E. and J, de. Madame de Pompadour. Paris, 1888.
Hamont, T. La Fin d'un empire fran^ais aux Indes sous Louis XV. Lally-
Tollendal. Paris. 1887.
Jobez, A. La France sous Louis XV, 6 vols. Paris. 1864-73.
Koser, K., and Kiintzel, G. Aus der Korrespondenz der franzosischen Gesandt-
Bchaft zu Berlin 1752-66. Forschungen zur Brand, und Preuss. Gesohichte.
Vols. VI and xii.
La Tremoille, C. L., Due de. Mon grand-pere, P. F. Walsh, k la Cour de Louis XV
et a la Cour de Louis XVI (1767-89). Paris. 1904.
Lion, H. Le Pre'sident He'nault (1685-1770). Paris. 1903.
Lu9ay, Count de. Les Secretaires d'Etat depuis leur institution jusqu'a la mort de
Louis XV. Paris. 1881,
Marion, Marcel. La Bretagne et le due d'Aiguillon. Paris. 1898.
Maugras, G. La fin d'une societe. Le due de Lauzun et la Cour intime de
Louis XV (1747-74). Paris. 1893.
—— Le due et la duchesse de Choiseul, leur vie intime et leur temps, 1755-70.
Paris. 1902.
La disgrace du due et de la duchesse de Choiseul. Paris. 1905.
Mention, L. Le comte de Saint Germain et ses reformes. Paris. 1884.
Moufle d'Angerville. Vie privee de Louis XV, 4 vols. London. 1788.
Nolhae, P. de. Etudes sur la Cour de France. Louis XV et Madame de Pompadour.
Paris. 1904.
Louis XV et Marie Leczinska. Paris. 1902.
Perey, L. Le Due de Nivernais. Paris. 1891.
Le President He'nault et M""= du Deifand. Paris. 1893.
Poequet, B. Le Pouvoir absolu et 1' Esprit provincial. Le due d'Aiguillon et La
Chalotais. 2 vols. Paris. 1900.
Raukin, L. The Marquis d'Argenson. London. 1901.
Remontranees du Parlement de Paris au xviii" siecle, publiees par J. Flammermont.
Paris. 1888.
Rocquain, F. L'esprit rdvolutionnaire avant la Revolution, 1715-89. Paris. 1878.
Bibliography. 897
Sage, H. Dom Philippe de Bourbon, infant des Espagnes, due de Panne, et Louise-
Elisabeth, fille aine'e de Louis XV. Paris. 1904.
Schaefer, A. Das Ende der Preuss.-Fraazos. Alliance im Jahre 1756. Historische
Zeitschrift. Vol. xiv.
Senac de Meilhan. Le gouvernement, les moeurs et les conditions en France avant
la Revolution, avec introduction et notes par H. de Lescure. Paris. 1862.
Soulange-Bodin, Andre. La diplomatie de Louis XV et le pacte de famille. Paris.
1894.
Stryienski, C. La Mere des trois derniers Bourbons, Marie Josephe de Saxe, et la
Cour de Louis XV. Paris. 1902.
Le Gendre de Louis XV, Don Philippe, infant d'Espagne et due de Parme.
Paris. 1904.
Vandal, A. Louis XV et !^lisabeth de Russie. Paris. 1882.
Vatel, C. Histoire de Madame du Barry. 3 vols. Paris. 1882-3.
Villiers de Terrs^e, M. Les dernieres annees de la Louisiane fran^aise. Paris.
1903.
Williams, H. N. Madame de Pompadour, London. 1902.
Madame du Barry. London. 1904.
Zom de Bulach, A. J., Baron. L'ambassade du Prince Louis de Rohan a la Cour
de Vienne, 1771-4. Strassburg. 1901.
C. Great Britain.
Chatham, William' Pitt, Earl of. Anecdotes... of the principal events of his time,
with his speeches.... 3 vols. London. 1810.
Corbett, J. England in the Seven Years' War. 2 vols. London. 1908.
Green, W. D. William Pitt, Earl of Chatham. London. 1902.
Innes, A. D. Britain and her Rivals in the Eighteenth Century, 1712-89. London.
1895.
KeUey, B. W. The Conqueror of Culloden, life and times of William Augustus,
Duke of Cumberland. London. 1903.
Lecky, W. E. H, History of England in the Eighteenth Century. 7 vols. London.
1892.
McCarthy, J. History of the Four Georges and of William IV, 2 vols. London.
1905.
Ruville, A. von. W. Pitt, Graf von Chatham. 3 vols. Stuttgart. 1905.
W. Pitt und Graf Bute. Berlin. 1895.
Die Auflosung des Preussischen-Englischen Bijudnisses im Jahre 1762. Berlin.
1892.
Skohome, B. C. Our Hanoverian Kings. London. 1884.
Thackeray, F. History of the Earl of Chatham. 2 vols. London. 1827.
Walpole, H. Memoirs of the Reign of George the Third. 4 vols. London. 1894.
D. Prussia and Germant.
Bitteranf, T. Die Kurbayrische Politik im Siebenjahrigen Kriege. Munich. 1901.
Bourdeau. Le Grand Frederic. 2 vols. Paris. 1900-2.
Heussel, A. ' Friedrichs des Grossen Annaherung an England 1756 und die
Sendung des Herzogs von Nivernais nach Berlin. Giessen. 1897.
Hoffmann, W. Die Politik des Fiirstbischofs von Wiirzburg und Bamberg, A. F.
Grafen von Seinsheim, 1766-63. Munich. 1903.
Klopp, O, Der Kdnig Friedrich und seine Politik. Schaffhausen. 1867.
Koser, R. Konig Friedrich der Grosse. 2 vols, Stuttgai-t 1893-1903.
C. M. B. VI. CH. XI, 67
898 The Reversal of Alliances and the Family Compact.
Lehmann, M. Friedrich der Grosse und der Ui-sprung des Siebenjahrigen Krieges.
Leipzig. 1894.
Longman, F. W. Frederick the Great and the Seven Years' War. London. 1881.
MendelsBohn-Bartholdy, K. Friedrich der Grosse und Polen. Auszuge aus der
Korrespondenz mit den Gesandten in Warschau und Petersburg 1762-6.
Forschungen zur Deutsch. Geschichte. Vol. ix.
Naude, A. Friedrichs des Grossen Angriffsplane gegen Oesterreich im Siebenjahrigen
Kriege. Marburg. 1893.
Oncken, W. Das Zeitalter Friedrichs des Grossen. 2 vols. Allg. Gesch. in Einzeld.
Berlin. 1880-2.
Faul-Dubois, L. Frederic le Grand, d'apres sa correspondance politique. Paris.
1903.
Banke, L. von. Zur Geschichte von Oesterreich und Preussen zwischen den
Friedensschliissen von Aachen und Hubertsburg. Sammtliche Werke, Vol. xxx.
Leipzig. 1875.
Baumer, F. V. Konig Friedrich II und seine Zeit (1760-9). Leipzig. 1836.
Reddaway, W. F. Frederick the Great and the rise of Prussia. London. 1904.
Schoning, K. W. von. Der Siebenjahrige Krieg...nach der Originalkorrespondenz
Friedrichs des Grossen mit dem Prinzen Heinrich und seine Generalen.
Potsdam. 3 vols. 1851-2.
Volz, G. B. Kriegfiihrung und Politik Konigs Friedrichs des Grossen in den ersten
Jahren des Siebenjahrigen Krieges. Berlin. 1896.
Wagner, F. Friedrichs des Grossen Beziehungen zu Frankreich und der Beginn
des Sii^beujahrigen Krieges, Hamburg. 1896.
E. Austria-Hungary.
Arneth, A. von. Geschichte Maria Theresia's. 10 vols. Vienna. 1863-79.
Biographie des Fiirsten Kaunitz. Vienna. 1899.
Bermamig. M. Maria Theresia und Kaiser Josef II. Vienna. 1881.
Broglie, A., Due de. Marie-Therese imperatrice. 2 vols. Paris. 1888.
Henneqjiin de Villermont, A. C. Marie-lTie'rese, 1717-80. 2 vols. , Paris. 1895.
Perey, Lucien. Charles de Lorraine et la Cour de Bruxelles sous le regue de Marie-
Th^rese. Paris. 1903.
Wolf, A. Oesterreich unter Maria Theresia, Josef II und Leopold II, 1740-92.
Vienna;. 1883.
F. Miscellaneous.
Danvila y Collado, M. Reinado de Carlos III. 6 vols. Madrid. 1907.
Blias, K. Die Preussisch-russischen Beziehungen von der Thronbesteigung
Peters III bis zum Abschluss des Preussisch-russischen ECindnisses vom
' 11. April, 1764. ■ Gottingen. 1900.
Masslowski. Zur Geschichte der Russisch-osterreichischen Kooperation, 1759.
Hanover. 1888.
Rambaud, A. Russes et Prussiens. Guerre de Sept Ans. Paris. 1895.
Rousseau, F. Regne de Charles III, roi d'Espagne (1769-88). 2 vols. Paris. 1907.
Volz, G. B., and Kiintzel, G. Preussische und osterreichische Akteu zur Vor-
geschichte des Siebenjahrigen Krieges. Leipzig. 1899.
Waliszewski, K. Le Roman d'une imperatrice. Paris. 1897>
899
CHAPTER XII.
SPAIN AND PORTUGAL, 1746-94.
(1) SPAIN UNDER FERDINAND VI AND CHARLES III.
A. CONTEMPORABY AuTHOBITIES.
Angelis, Pedro de. Relafion historica de los sucesos de la rebelion de Jose Grabriel
Tupae Amaru en las provincias del Peru el afio de 1780. ...Coleccion de obras y
documentos relatives a la liistoria...de las Provincias del Rio de la Plata. Vol. v.
Buenos Ayres. 1831.
Aribau, B. C. Obras originales del Conde de Florida Blanca y escritos referentes
a su persona. BibL de autores Espanoles. Vol. ux. Madrid. 1899.
Becatini, Francisco. Storia del regno di Carlo III. Venice. 1790.
Bourgoing, J. F. de. Tableau de I'Espagne moderne. 2 vols. Paris. 1797.
CampomaneSj Pedro Rodriguez, Count of. Cartas politico-econdmicas escritas...al
Conde de Lerena, precedidas de una introduccion y de la biografia del autor.
Madrid. 1878.
Clarke, E. D. (Chaplain to the Ambassador, Lord Bristol). Letters concerning
the Spanish nation. London. 1763.
Crillon, Louis de Berton, Due de. Memoires militaires. Paris. 1791.
Dalrymple, William (Lieut. -Colonel). Travels through Spain and Portugal in
1774, with account of the Spanish expedition against Algiers, 1775. London.
1777.
Drinlswater, John. A history of the late siege of Gibraltar. London. 1785.
Fernan-Nunez, C. J. Gutierrez de los Rios, Count of (Ambassador at Lisbon, Paris,
etc.). Vida de Carlos III con la biografia del autor, notas y appendices por
A. Morel-Fatio y A. Paz y Melia. 2 vols. Madrid. 1896.
Fernando, Manuel. Diario de lo ocurrido en el sitio de Gibraltar. Madrid.
1787.
Florida-Blanca, Joseph Monino, Count of. Gobiemo del Senor Rey Carlos III
...dada a luz por A. Muriel. Madrid. 1839.
Jovellanos, G. de. Obras publicados por D. Candido Nocedal. 3 vols. Madrid.
1903.
Lopez de Ayala, Ignacio. Historia de Gibraltar. Madrid. 1782.
Malmesbury, first Earl of. Diaries and correspondence of. London. 1844.
Spain, a new account of the inhabitants, trade and government of. London.
1762.
Swinburne, Henry. Travels through Spain in 1775 and 1776. London. 1787.
OH. XII. 67—2
900 Spain and Portugal, 1746-94.
B. Later Works.
ColmeirOj Manuel. Historia de la Economia Politica en Espafia. Madrid. 1866.
Costa, Joaquin. Collectivismo agrario en Espana. Madrid. 1898.
Coterelo y Mori. Iriarte y su epoca. Madrid. 1897.
Don Ramon de la Cruz y sus obras. Madrid. 1899.
Coxe, William, Archdeacon of Wilts. Memoirs of the Kings of Spain of the House
of Boiirbon (1700-88). 6 vols. London. 1816. [Most valuable because of
the copious extracts from diplomatic correspondence and other contemporary
documents.]
Danvila y CoUado, Manuel. Reinado de Carlos III. 6 vols. Madrid. 1892, etc.
[These volumes, which form part of the Hist. Gen. de Espana, by members of
the Real Acad, de Hist, under the direction of A. Canovas del Castillo, are
thorough and detailed in their treatment. The elaborate and signally complete
series of references in foot-notes to the original sources in the various Archives
of the Kingdom forms a special feature.]
Ferrer del Rio, Autouio. Historia del Reinado de Carlos IIL 4 vols. Madrid.
1856.
Colecfion de los articulos en la "Esperanza" sobre la historia del Reinado
de Carlos III, escrito per. Madrid. 1859.
Haebler, C. Maria Josefa Amalia, Konigin von Spanien. Dresden. 1893.
Lafuente, M. Historia General de Espafia. Vols, xix to xxi. Madrid. 1850-62.
[Contains many original documents.]
Lavalle, J. A. de. Don Pablo de Olavide. Lima. 1886.
Leguina, H. de. El P. Ravage, confesor de Fernando VI. Estadio biografico.
Madrid. 1876.
Macanaz, M. R. de. Espana y Francia en el siglo xviii. Madrid. 1876.
Rodriguez Villa, A. El marques de la Ensenada. Madrid. 1876.
Patino y Campillo. Madrid. 1882.
Rosseeuw Saiut-Hilaire, E. F. A. Histoire d'Espagne. Vols, xii and ziii.
Madrid. 1893-6.
Rousseau, Fran9ois. Regne de Charles III d'Espagne (1759-88). 2 vols. Paris.
1907. [For Franco-Spanish relations in particular.]
Stryienski, C. Le Gendre de Louis XV, Don Philippe, Infant d'Espagne et due
de Parme. Paris. 1904.
(2) EXPULSION OF THE JESUITS FROM PORTUGAL AND SPAIN.
Azevedo, J. L. de. Os Jesuitas no Grao-Pard. Lisbon. 1902.
Brabo, J. Coleccion de documeutos relativos a la expulsion de los Jesuitas
de la Republica Argentina y del Paraguay, en el reinado de Carlos III.
Madrid. 1872.
Carayon, P. Charles III et les J^suites de ses !^tats d'Europe et d'Amdrique en
1767. Paris. 1868.
Causa Jesuitica de Portugal, o documentos autenticos, bulas, leyes reales, despachos
de la Secretaria de estado y otras piezas originales. (Tr. from Portuguese.)
Madrid. 1768.
Cr^tineau-Joly, J. A. M. Clement XIV et les J&uites. Paris. 1847.
Garay, Bias. El Comunismo de las misiones de la Compania de Jesus en el Para-
guay. Madrid. 1797.
Menezes, C. J. de. Os Jesuitas e o Marques de Pombal. Oporto. 1893.
Murr, Gottlieb von. Geschichte der Jesuiten in Portugal unter der Staatsveiv
waltung der Marquis von Pombal. 2 vols. Nuremberg. 1788.
Bibliography. 901
Opperman, H. A. Pombal und die Jesuiten. Hanover. 1846.
Pombal, Choiseul et d'Aranda...un precis historique de ce qui s'est passd en Portugal,
en France et en Espagne a 1' occasion des Jesuites. Documents historiques.
3 vols. Paris. 1827.
Recueil de pieces qui n'avoient pas encore paru en France concernant le prooes des
Jesuites et de leurs complices en Portugal. Paris. 1761.
S. J. C. M. (Pombal). Rela^ao abreviada da republica que os religiosos Jesuitas
das Frovincias de Portugal e Hespanba estabelecerao nos dominios ultramarines
das duas mouarchias.... Paris. 1758.
(3) PORTUGAL.
A. Contemporary Authorities.
Administration du Marquis de Pombal. 4 vols. Amsterdam. 1787.
Anecdotes du ministere de Pombal. Warsaw. 1781.
Cartas e outras obras selectas do Marques de Pombal. 3 vols. Lisbon. 1820-4.
Memoirs of the Court of Portugal and of the administration of the Count d'Oeyras
(from a series of original letters written in French). London. 1766.
Vita de Seb. G. de Carvalho (Marchese de Pombal). 4 vols. Siena. 1782.
B. Later Writers.
Billot, A. Pombal et les Tavora. Revue Bleue. September, 1889.
Coelho, J. M. Latino. Historia de Portugal desde os fins do xvii seculo atd 1814.
Lisbon. 1874.
Duhr, B. (S. J.). Pombal, sein Charakter u. seine Politik. Freiburg i. B.
1891.
Gomez, F. L. Le Marquis de Pombal. Paris. 1869.
Luz Soriano, J. P. da. Historia do reino de Dom Jozd I. Lisbon. 1866.
Olfers, J. F. M. von. Uber den Mordversuch gegen den Konig Joseph von
Portugal an 3 September, 1758. Berlin. 1839.
Oliveira Martins, J. P. Historia de Portugal. 2 vols. Lisbon. 1901.
Processes celebres do Marquez de Pombal. Factos curiosos e escandalosos de sua
epoca. Lisbon. 1882.
Schafer, H. Geschichte von Portugal. 6 vols. (Gesch. d. europ. Staaten.)
Hamburg u. Gotha. 1874.
Silva, L. A. Rebello da. Historia de Portugal nos seculos xvu e xvui. 6 vols.
Lisbon. 1860-71.
Smith, John, Count of Carnota. Memoirs of the Marquess of Pombal with extracts
from his writings and despatches. 2 vols. London. 1843. [The author was
private secretary to Marshal the Duke of Saldanha.]
Stephens, H. Morse. Portugal. (Story of Nations Series.) London. 1891.
[As to the eispuhion of the Jesuits, cf. Bibliography to Chapter XVI, u d.]
(4) BRAZIL.
Galanti, P. R. M. Compendio da historia do Brazil. 4 vols. S5o Paulo. 1906.
Mello Moraes, A. J. Brazil historico. 4 vols. Rio de Janeiro. 1839.
Oliveira Martins, J. P. O Brazil e as Colonias Portuguezas. Lisbon. 1888.
Southey, R. History of Brazil. 3 vols. London. 1810.
Varnhagen, F. A. Historia General de Brazil. 3 vols. Madrid. 1864-7.
902
CHAPTER XIII.
GREAT BRITAIN.
(1756-93.)
A good critical bibliography of the years 1760-1801 will be found in W. Hunt's
Political History of Englandj vol. x (see below). For the history of Ireland in this
period see Bibliography to Chapter xiv. For the history of the American Colonies
and the United States in this period see Bibliographies to Vol. vii. General, and
Chapters u, lu, iv, v, vi, and vii. For the history of India see Bibliography to
Chapter xv. For the history of the Seven Years' War in Germany and the diplomatic
history of the period, see Bibliographies to Chapters ix and xi.
I. GENERAL HISTORIES.
(Oovering more than one section of this Chapter^.)
Adolphus, J. The History of England, from the Accession to the decease of King
George III. 7 vols. London. 1840-6.
Almon, J. Anecdotes of Eminent Persons of the Present Age. 3 vols. London.
1797.
Annual Register, the. (Commencing in 1768.) London. 1768 sqq. [The earliest
volumes are edited by Edmund Burke.]
Bancroft, G. Histoi-y of the United States of America. 6 vols. London. 1876.
Bisset, R. History of the reign of George III to the termination of the late War.
6 vols. London. 1803.
Brosch, M. Geschichte von England. Vols, viii, ix. (Gesch. d. europ. Staaten.)
Gotha. 1893-6.
Chanuing, E. History of the United States. Vol. ii. New York. 1908.
Clowes, Sir W. L. The Royal Navy. 7 vols. London. 1897-1903.
Cust, Sir E. Annals of the Wars. 6 vols. London. 1858-60.
Fortescue, J. W. History of the British Army. Part I. 2 vols. London. 1899.
Hunt, W. History of England from the Accession of George III to the close of
Pitt's first Administration. Political History of England. Vol. x. London.
1906.
Hunter, Sir W. W. The Indian Empire. New edn. London. 1893.
Laughton, Sir J. K. Studies in Navy History. London. 1887.
Leadam, I. S. History of England, 1702-60. (Political History of England,
Vol. IX.) London. 1909.
Lecky, W. B. H. History of England in the Eighteenth Century. New edn.
7 vols. London. 1892.
1 Works bearing more especially upon one of the three sections of this chapter
are entered under the Bibliography of that section only.
Bibliography. 903
Macphei-soiij D. Annals of Commerce. 4 vols. London. 1805.
Mahan, A. T. Influence of Sea Power upon History^ 1660-1783. London. 1889
(and later editions).
Mahon, Lord (Earl Stanhope). History of England, from the Peace of Utrecht to
the Peace of Versailles, 1713-83. New edn. 7 vols. London. 1836-64.
Marks, M. A. M. England and America, 1763-83. 2 vols. London. 1907.
Massey, W. A History of England during the Reign of George III. 4 vols.
London. 1855-63.
May, Sir T. E. (Lord Farnhorough). The Constitutional History of England since
the accession of George III. 3rd edn. 3 vols. London. 1871.
MiU, James. History of British India. 9 vols. London. 1840-8.
Parliamentary History, the. Vols, xiv-xxx. London. 1813-17.
Plowden, F. Historical Review of the State of Ireland from the invasion of
Henry II to the Union. 2 vols. London. 1803.
Seeley, Sir J. R. The Expansion of England. London. 1900.
Tbrrens, W. M. History of Cahinets. From the Union with Scotland to the
Acquisition of Canada and Bengal. 2 vols. Loudon. 1894.
See also, passim, The Dictionary of National Biography, edited by Sir Leslie
Stephen and Sidney Lee. London. 1885-1900 ; and especially the articles on
William Pitt the elder and the younger.
II. WILLIAM PITT THE ELDER.
A. Sources.
1. Manuscript.
Among the ms. sources for the history of this period the documents of the
Record Office as a matter of course stand first, furnishing the chief material for the
history of the foreign and the colonial policy of Great Britain as well as for the
internal history of the country, during Pitt's great Administration. Of special
importance are the diplomatic correspondences in State Papers, Foreign, and the
State Papers, Colonial ; also the Admiralty Records. The Home Office Records
are calendared from 1760 to 1775. Lastly, the practice which prevailed in the
eighteenth century in England as elsewhere, of opening the correspondences of the
ambassadors of foreign States in the Post and having them transcribed so far as
possible, led to the accumulation of a large number of "Intercepted Despatches,"
which are preserved in the section State Papers, Foreign, Confidential. They fill
27 vols, for the years 1766-63 only.
An important supplement to all these documents is to he found in the Chatham
or Pringle Manuscripts, which were bequeathed to the Record Office by the late
Admiral Pringle, and contain the correspondence of both the elder and the younger
William Pitt. To judge from the use to which they have been already put by
several enquirers (H. Hall, A. von Ruville, J. S. Corbett), they possess the very
highest importance not only for the family history of the elder Pitt, but also for the
home and foreign policy of his Administration. A selection of the most interesting
pieces was printed in the Chatham Correspondence, edited by W. S. Taylor and
J. H. Pringle. 4 vols. London. 1838-40.
In the British Museum the great collection of the Newcastle Papers is of
exceptional value for this period as well as for the preceding decades. Of other
manuscript collections it must suffice to mention here the Hardwicke Papers and
the Mitchell Papers. From- the latter A. Bisset's work, mentioned below, contains
valuable extracts. The papers of Lord Egremont, which are valuable for the peace
negotiations of 1761-3, are in the possession of the Marquis of Lansdowne and have
been used by J. S. Corbett (see 11, below).
904 Great Britain, 1766-93.
Among the great Continental Archives the Berlin Secret Archives of State may
probably be regarded as of the greatest importance, inasmuch as Prussia was the
ally of Great Britain in the Seven Years' War. A. Schaefer in his History of the
Seven Years' War was the first to use the material of these Archives in compre-
hensive fashion ; the most interesting portions of it, more especially the Political
Correspondence of Frederick the Great, have since appeared in print. Other
historians, such as R. Koser and A. von Ruville, have also in the meantime utilised
the documents of these Archives for their works on this period. The Archives of
Parisand Vienna, though containing much of value, in accordance with the nature
of the relations between the Austrian and French Governments, on the one hand,
and the British, on the other, during the Seven Years' War possess only a secondary
significance. A. von Arneth's narrative is based mainly on the material at Vienna,
and the works of R. Waddington on that furnished by the Archives forangeres at
Paris.
2. Printed Memoirs and Correspondence; Contemporary Speeches and Pamphlets.
Acten. Preussische nnd Oesterreichische Acten zur Vorgeschichte des Sieben-
jahrigen Krieges. Edd. G. B. Volz and G. Kiintzel. (Publ. a. d. preuss.
Staatsarch. 74.) Leipzig. 1899.
Almon, J. Anecdotes of the Life of the Earl of Chatham. London. 1793.
Annual Register, the. 1768 sqq. [The earliest volumes edited by Edmund Burke.]
Barham, Charles Lord. . Letters and Papers of, 1768-1813. Ed. Sir J. K. Laughton.
I. Navy Records Society. London. 1907.
Bedford, fourth Duke of. Correspondence. With an introduction by Lord John
Russell. London. 1842-6.
Bisset, A. Memoirs and Papers of Sir Andrew Mitchell. 2 vols. London. 1850.
Byng, Admiral John, Trial of. Dublin. 1767.
A Candid Examination of the Court-Martial of Admiral Byng in a letter to
the gentlemen of the Navy. By an old sea officer.
— - An exact copy of a letter from Admiral Byng to the Right Hon. W
P , Esq.
Calendars of Home Office Papers of the Reign of George HL Ed. T. Redington.
Vol. I (1760-6). 1878.
Chatham, Earl of.— Authentic Memoirs of the Right Hon. the late Earl of Chatham.
1778.
The Speeches of the Right Hon. the Earl of Chatham with a biographical
Memoir. 1848.
Pitt, W. Correspondence of. Edd. W. S. Taylor and J. H. Pringle. 4 vols.
London. 1838-40.
Correspondence of, when Secretary of State with Colonial Governors
and Military and Naval Commissioners in America. Ed., for the Club of The
Colonial Dames of America, by Gertrude Selwyn Kimball. 1906.
Choiseul, Due de. Memoires de. [See Bibl. to Chapter xi. III A.]
Clarke, E. Letters concerning the Spanish Nation during 1760-1. London. 1763.
Fighting Instructions, 1630-1816. Ed. J. S. Corbett. Navy Records Society.
London. 1905.
Frederick the Great.— Histoire de la Guerre de Sept Ans. (OEuvres iv, v.) Berlin,
1847.
Politische Correspondenz. Vols, xi-xxi. Berlin. 1883-94.
Grafton, A. H., third Duke of. Autobiography and political Correspondence. Ed.
Sir W. R. Anson. London. 1898.
Grenville Papers, the, being the Correspondence of Rich. Grenville, Earl Temple,
and George Grenville, their Friends and Contemporaries. Ed. W. T. Smith;
4 vols. 1862.
Bibliography. 905
Louis XVj Correspondance de, et du Mar^chal de Noailles. 2 vols. Paris. 1866.
Parliamentary History of England. Vols, xiv-xvi. 1813.
Recueil des Instructions donnees aux Ambassadeura et Ministres de France depuis
les traites de Westphalie jusqu'a la Revolution fran^aise. xvi : Prusse, avec une
introd. et notes par A. Waddington. Paris. 1901. xii6t'«: Espagne. Vol. iii.
(1722-93.) Par A. Morel-Fatio et H. Le'onardon. Paris. 1899.
Rockingham, Marquis of. Memoirs of, and his Contemporaries. By G. Thomas,
Earl of Albemarle. 2 vols. London. 1862.
Round Mss. Hist. mss. Comm. Rep. xiv. App. Pt. ix, pp. 291 sqq. London.
1896.
Stopford-SackvUle mss. Hist. mss. Comm. Rep. xv. London. 1904.
Townshend, Marquis, mss. Hist. mss. Comm. Rep. xi, Pt. 4, pp. 294-328. London.
1887.
Walpole, Horace. Letters. Ed. Mrs Paget Toynbee, with Bibliography. 16 vols.
Oxford. 1903-6.
Memoirs of the last ten years of the Reign of George II. 2 vols. London.
1822.
Memoirs of the Reign of George III. Ed. Sir Denis Le Marchant. 4 vols.
London. 1846.
Westoa-Uuderwood mss. Hist. mss. Comm. Rep. x. App. Pt. 1. Loudon. 1886.
IL Secondary Works.
Barth^emy, Comte E. de. Le traite de Paris. Revue des questions historiques.
Vol. XMii. Paris. 1888.
Beer, A. Zur Geschichte des Jahres 1766. Mitteilungen des Instituts fiir Oester.
Gesch. XVII.
Beer, G. L. British Colonial Policy, 1754-66. New York. 1907.
Commercial Policy of England towards the Colonies. New York. 1893.
Bourguet, A. ilfitudes sur la Politique etrangere du Due de Choiseul. Paris. 1907.
Bourinot, J. G. Canada under British Rule. Cambridge. 1900.
Bourne, E. G. Spain in America. New York. 1904.
Bradley, A. G. The Fight with France for North America. Westminster. 1902.
Carlyle, T. History of Friedrich II of Prussia called Frederick the Great. 6 vols.
London. 1868-66.
CoqueUe, P. Les Projets de Descente en Angleterre. Paris. 1902. [Docs.]
Co.rbett, J. S. England in the Seven Years' War. A study in combined strategy.
2 vols. London. 1907.
Coxe, W. Memoirs of the Pelham Administration. 2 vols. London. 1829.
Droysen, T. G. Geschichte, der preussischen Politik. Vol. v, Pt. 4. Leipzig. 1886.
Duncker, M. Die Bildung der Koalition des Jahres 1766. (Sitzungsberichte der
Akad.) Berlin. 1882.
Preussen und England im Siebenj^rigen Kriege. (Abhandlungen z. neueren
Gesch.) Leipzig. 1887.
Fitzmaurice, Lord. Life of William, Earl of Shelburne. 3 vols. London. 1876.
Fortescue, J. W. A History of the British Army. Vol. ii. London. 1899.
Germiny, Comte M. de. Les brigandages maritimes de 1' Angleterre sous le regne
de Louis XV. Revue des questions historiques. 1908.
Godwin, W. History of the Life of William Pitt, Earl of Chatham. 1783.
Grant, W. L. La Mission de M. de Bussy a Londres en 1761. Revue d'Hist.
Diplom. XX. Paris. 1906. . ,
Pitt's Theory of Empire. Queen's Review. Kingston (Canada). July —
Sept. 1908.
906 Great Britain, 1766-93.
Hall, H. Chatham's colonial policy. American Historical Review, July, 1900.
Pitt and the Family Compact. Quarteriy Review, October, 1899.
Was Pitt a Prophet.' Contemporary Review. October, 1896.
See also papers on Pitt by the same writer in Athenaeum, May 12, 1900,
April 19 and July 12, 1902.
Harris, G. Life of the Earl of Hardwicke. 3 vols. London. 1847.
Harrison, F. Chatham. (Twelve English Statesmen.) London. 1906.
Chatham. Address. Hist. Soc. Transactions. 1909.
Hertz, G. B. The Old Colonial System. Manchester. 1905.
Heussel, A. Friedrichs des Grossen Annaherung an England 1756 und die Sendung
des Herzogs V. Nivernais nach Berlin. (Giessener Studien.) Giessen. 1896.
Hotblack, Kate. The Peace of Paris 1763. Transactions Royal Hist. Soc. 3rd
ser. Vol. II. London. 1908.
Hunt, W. Pitt's retirement from office, 6 Oct. 1761. English Historical Review,
1906, pp. 119 sqq.
Immich, M. Geschichte des Europaischen Staatensystems von 1660 bis 1789.
Munich and Berlin. 1905.
Jesse, J. H. Memoirs of the Life and Reign of King George IH. London. 1867.
Koser, R. Konig Friedrich der Grosse. 2 vols. Stuttgart. 1893-1903.
Uoyd, E. M. The Raising of the Highland Regiments in 1767. Engl. Hist. Rev.
1902, pp. 466 sqq.
Lucas, Sir C. P. History of Canada to 1812. London. 1909.
Luckwaldt, P. Die Westminsterkonvention. Prenssische Jahrbiicher. Vol. lxxs.
Macaulay, Lord. Essays. William Pitt, Earl of Chatham. The Earl of Chatham.
Frederic the Great. 3 vols. London. 1843.
Mace, W. H. Des alteren Pitt Beziehungen zur amerikanischen Revolution. Jena.
1897.
Masson, F. Le Cardinal de Bernis depuis son ministere. Paris. 1884.
Michael, W. Die englischen Koalitionsentwurfe des Jahres 1748. Forschungen
zur Brand, u. Preuss. Gesch. i. 1888.
Moses, B. South America on the eve of Emancipation. New York and London. 1908.
Oncken, W. Das Zeitalter Friedrichs des Grossen. 2 vols. Berlin. 1880-2.
Preuss, T. D. E. Friedrich der Grosse. Eine Lebensgeschichte. 4 vols., with
Urkundenbuch. Berlin. 1832-4.
Ranke, L. von. Franzosische Geschichte, vornehmlich im 16. u. 17. Jahrhundert.
Sammtliche Werke. Vols, viii-xiii. Leipzig. 1868-70.
Englische Geschichte, vornehmlich im 17. Jahrhundert. Sammtliche Werke.
Vols, xiv-xxii. Leipzig. 1870. English transl. 6 vols. Oxford. 1876.
Friedrich II, Konig von Preussen. Sammtliche Werke. Vols, li, lii.
Leipzig, 1888.
Der Ursprung des Siebenjahrigen Krieges. Sammtliche Werke. Vol. xxx.
Leipzig. 1876.
Raumer, F. von. Konig Friedrich II u. seine Zeit (1740-69). Nach den gesandt-
schaftlichen Berichten im Brit. Mus. u. Reicharchive. (Beitrage z. neuer.
Gesch. II.) Leipzig. 1836.
Ruville, A. von. William Pitt, Graf von Chatham. 3 vols. Stuttgart and Berlin.
1905. Engl, transl., with preface by H. E. Egerton. London. 1907.
William Pitt (Chatham) und Graf Bute. Berlin. 1895.
Die Auflosung des preussisch-englischen Biindnisses im Jahre 1762. Berlin.
1892.
Michael, W. Gottingische Gelehrte Anzeigen 1894. No. 4.
Ruville, A. von. Friedrich der Grosse und Bute. Eine Erwiderung.
Deutsche Zeitschr. f. Geschichtswiss. 1894. xii.
Salomon, F. William Pitt. Vol. i. Leipzig. 1901.
Bibliography. 907
Strieder, J. Kritische Forschnngen zur Oesterreichischen Politik (1748-66). (Leip-
ziger Histor. Abh. 2.) Leipzig. 1906.
Temperley, H. W. V. Pitt's retirement from office, 6 Oct. 1761. English Historical
Review, 1906, pp. 327 sqq.
Thackeray, F. A History of William Pitt, Earl of Chatham. 2 vols. London. 1827.
Waddington, R. Louis XV et le renversement des alliances. Paris. 1896.
La guerre de sept ans. Vols. i-iv. Paris. 1899-1907.
Ward, A. W. Great Britain and Hanover. (Ford Lectures.) Oxford. 1899.
Williams, B. William Pitt and the representation of the Colonies in the Imperial
Parliament. Eng. Hist. Rev. Vol. xxii, pp. 756 sqq. London. 1907.
Winstanley, D. A. George III and his first Cabinet. Engl. Hist. Review.
Vol. XVII, pp. 678 ff. London. 1902.
Winter, G. Friedrich der Grosse. (Geisteshelden.) 3 vols. Berlin. 1906.
III. THE KING'S FRIENDS.
A. SOUROSS.
1. Manuscript.
British Museum. Conway Papers, Addit. mss. 17497-8. George III, Letters of,
Egerton ms. 982. Gunning Papers, Egerton mss. 2696-2706. Hardwicke Papers,
Addit. MSS. 35352-915. Mitchell Papers, Addit. mss. 6819-36. Newcastle Papers,
Addit. MSS. 32901-33002 and 33023-5. Wilkes Papers, Addit. mss. 22131-2 and
30883-6.
Record Office. See Section II, 1 ahom.
Lansdowne House. Viry Papers, seen by kind permission of the Marquis of
Lansdowne.
2. Printed Documents; Contemporary Letters, Memoirs, etc.
Almon, J. History of the late Minority, 1762-6. London. 1766.
Political Register. 11 vols. London. 1767-72.
Review of Lord Bute's Administration. London. 1763.
Annual Register. Vols, ni-xxvii. London. 1761-83.
Bath MSB. Longleat Papers. Hist. mss. Comm. Rep. xv. London. 1904.
Bedford, fourth Duke of. Correspondence. Ed. Lord John Russell. 3 vols.
1842-6.
Cavendish, Sir H. Debates of the House of Commons during the Thirteenth
Parliament of Great Britain, 1768-71. With Memoir by W. Dowdeswell, and
Journal of the fourth Duke of Bedford, 1766-70. 2 vols. London. 1841.
Changes in the Ministry, 1765-7. Edited from Newcastle ms. 33003 by Miss Bateson
for Royal Historical Society. (Camden Ser.) London. 1898.
Cumberland, Richard. Memoirs. 2 vols. London. 1807.
Dartmouth mss. Vols, ii and iii. Hist. mss. Comm. Rep. xiv. App. Pt. 10.
London. 1896.
Dodington, George Bubb (Baron Melcombe). Diary, 1748-61. London. 1786.
4th edn. 1809
Du Cane, Lady, mss. Hist. mss. Comm. Rep. xv. London. 1906.
Elizabeth, Princess, daughter of George III and Landgravine of Hesse-Homburg.
Ed. P. C. Yorke. London. 1898.
Eon de Beaumont, Chevalier de. Lettres, Memoires, etc. The Hague. 1764.
Frederick the Great. Politische Correspondenz. Vols, xix-xxii. Berlin. 1892-6.
Garden, Comte de. Histoire Generale des Traites de Paix. Vols, iv, v. Paris, n. d.
George III. Correspondence with Lord North. 1768-83. Ed. W. B. Donne. 2 vols.
London. 1867.
908 Great Britain, 1766-93.
Gibbon> Edward. Autobiographies. Intr. by John, Earl of Sheffield. Ed. J. Murray.
London. 1896.
Glover, Richard. Memoirs, 1742-67. London. 1814.
Grenville Papers. Ed. W. J. Smith. 4 vols. London. 1852-3.
Historical mss. Commission, Reports of. Vols, in-xv. Appendices, and Reports
on MSS. of Mrs Stopford Sackville, American mss. in Royal Institution, and mss.
of the Marquess of Lothian. London. 1872-1905.
Junius. Letters of. Ed. J. M. Good. London. 1814.
Leeds, Francis, fifth Duke of. Political Memoranda. Ed. O. Browning. (Camden
Soc.) London. 1884.
Lennox, Lady Sarah. Life and Letters, 1745-1826. Ed. Countess of Ilchester and
Lord Stavordale. 2 vols. 1904.
Macfarlan, R. History of the first ten years of the reign of George III. 2nd edn.-
London. 1783.
M^Culloch, H. Miscellaneous Representations to the Earl of Bute relative to our
concerns in America (1761). Ed. W. A. Shaw. Loudon. 1906. [The original
project for taxing the Colonies.]
Montagu, Lady Mary Wortley. Letters and Works. Ed. Lord Whamcliffe.
3rd edn by W. M. Thomas. 3 vols. London. 1861.
Mure, W. Selections from the Family Papers preserved at Caldwell. (Maitland
Club.) 3 vols. Glasgow. 1853-4.
Phillimore, Sir R. J. Memoirs and Correspondence of George Lord Lyttelton.
2 vols. London. 1845.
Rose, G. Diaries and Correspondence. Ed. L. V. Harcourt. 2 vols. London. 1860.
Selwyn, George. Letters and Life. Ed. E. S. Roscoe and H. Clergue. London.
1899.
Letters passim. Savile Foljambe Papers. Hist. mss. Comm. Rep. xv, Pt. 6.
London. 1897.
Title and Letters, 1746-1826. 2 vols. 1904.
Waldegrave, James, second Earl. Memoir from 1764 to 1758. London. 1821.
Walpole, Horace (Earl of Orford). Memoirs of the reign of King George III.
Ed. Sir Denis Le Marchant ; rev. G. F. Russell Barker. 4 vols. London. 1894.
Letters. Ed. Mrs Paget Toy nbee. 16 vols. Oxford. 1903-6. [Bibliography.]
Journal of the reign of George III, 1771-83. Ed. J. Doran. 2 vols. London.
1869.
Weston Underwood mss. Hist. mss. Comm. Rep. x. App. Pt. i, pp. 321-427.
London. 1886.
Wraxall, Sir N. W. Historical and Posthumous Memoirs, 1772-84. Ed. H. B.
Wheatley. 6 vols. London. 1884.
B. Later Works.
Albemarle, Earl of. Memoirs of the Marquis of Rockingham and his contemporaries.
2 vols. London. 1862.
Almon, John. Anecdotes of the Life of Chatham. London. 1796, 1810.
Barring^on, Shute. Political Life of Viscount Barrington. London. 1814.
Buckingham and Chandos, second Duke of. Memoirs of the Court and Cabinets
of George III. 4 vols. London. 1863-5.
Buckinghamshire, John, second Earl of. 'Papers, 1762-5. Ed. A. D'Arcy Collier
for the Royal Historical Society. 1900.
Papers, etc. in Lothian mss. Hist. mss. Comm. London. 1906.
Campbell, Lord. Lives of the Chancellors. 8 vols. London. 1846-69.
Choiseul-Stainville, Due de. Memoire Historique sur la negociation de la France
et de I'Angleterre depuis le 26 mars. 1761 jusqu'au 20 septembre de la meme
ann^e. Leipzig. 1761.
Bibliography. 909
Elliot, G. F. Stewart. The Border Elliots and the Family of Minto. Edinburgh.
Elliot, Sir Gilbert [Earl of Minto]. Memoir by the Countess of Minto. 3 vols.
Edinburgh. 1874. [Docs.]
Family Compact, the. Quarterly Review. Vol. oxc, No. 380, Art. iii. London.
1899.
GaiUardet, F. Memoires dn Chevalier d']&on. 3 vols. Brussels. 1837.
Harris, G. Life of Lord Chancellor Hardwicke. 3 vols. London. 1847. [Docs.]
Hertz, G. B. Diplomacy as to Falkland Isles, 1770. In British Imperialism,
pp. 110-49. London. 1908.
Hotblack, Kate. The Peace of Paris, 1763. Transactions of the Royal Historical
Society. 3rd ser. Vol. ii. London. 1908.
' Jesse, J. H. George Selwyn and his contemporaries. 4 vols. London. 1843-4,
1882.
Memoirs of the Life and Reign of George III. 3 vols. London. 1867.
Nicholls, J. Recollections and Reflections as connected with public affairs during
the reign of George III. 2 vols. London. 1820-2.
RuviUe, A. von. William Pitt (Chatham) und Graf Bute. Ein Beitrag zur inneren
Geschichte Englands unter Georg III. Berlin. 1895.
William Pitt, Graf von Chatham. 3 vols. Stuttgart and Berlin. 1905.
Sheffield, John, Lord. Observations on the Commerce of the American States.
London. 1784.
Stanhope, Earl. Life of William Pitt. 4 vols. London. 1861-2. [Docs.]
Townshend, Charles. Life. By Percy Fitzgerald. London. 1866.
Tucker, Josiah. Four Tracts on Political and Commercial Subjects. Gloucester.
1774.
Series of Answers to certain Popular Objections against separating from the
Rebellious Colonies. Gloucester. 1776.
Traite, le, de Paris entre la France et Angleterre (1763). Revue des Questions
Historiques. Vol. xuii. Paris. 1888.
Trevelyan, Sir G. O., Bart. Early History of C. J. Fox. London. 1881, 1908.
Wiffen, J. H. Historical Memoir's of the House of Russell. 2 vols. Loudon. 1833.
C. The Wilkes Affair.
Complete Collection of the Genuine Papers, Letters, etc., in the case of John Wilkes.
Paris. 1767.
• Howell, T. B. State Trials. Vol. xix, 982-1176, 1382-1418.
Kidgell, J. Genuine and Succinct Narrative of a Libel entitled An Essay on
Woman. London. 1763.
Lloyd, C, Defence of the Majority in the Question relating to General Warrants.
London. 1764.
Rae, W. Eraser. Wilkes, Sheridan, Fox : the Opposition under George III.
London. 1874.
Stephens, A. Memoirs of J. Home Tooke. 2 vols. London. 1813.
Townshend, C. Defence of the Minority on the Question relating to General
Warrants. London. 1764.
Warburton, William, Bishop of Gloucester. Works. Supplement by F. Kilvert,
pp. 223-32. London. 1841.
Wilkes, J. Correspondence and Memoirs. Ed. J. Almon, 5 vols. London. 1805.
Wright, T. Caricature History of the Georges. London, 1869.
See also the following newspapers for the years during which the controversy raged :
Monitor, Auditor, Briton, North Briton, Public Advertiser, St James' Chronicle.
See also Section A above; and article on Wilkes in Dictionary of National
Biography.
910 Great Britain, 1766-93.
D. Naval and Military Affairs.
Barrow, Sir J. Life of Richard, Earl Howe. London. 1838.
Beatson, R. Naval and Military Memoirs. 6 vols. London. 1804.
Chevalier, E. Histoire de la Marine Fran^aise pendant la, guerre de I'lndependance
Amerioaine. Paris. 1877.
Edwards, Bryan. History of the British Colonies in the West Indies. 3 vols.
London. 1807.
Keppel, T. Life of Augustus, Viscount Keppel. 2 vols. London. 1842.
Laughton, Sir J. K. Articles on naval commanders and John Montagu, fourth
Earl of Sandwich, in Dictionary of National Biography.
Leboucher, O. G. Histoire de la derniere Guerre entre la Grande-Bretagne et les
^tats-Unis, la France, I'Espagne et la Hollande. Paris. 1787.
Manners, W.E. Lifeof John Manners, Marquis of Granby. London. 1899. [Docs.]
Montero y Vidal. Historia de Filipinas. Madrid. 1887.
Mundy, G. B. Life and Correspondence of Admiral Lord Rodney. 2 vols.
London. 1830.
Valdes, A. J. Historia de la Isla de Cuba y en especial de la Habana. Havannah.
1780. Reprinted in Los tres primeros Historiadores de la Isla de Cuba, etc.
3 vols. Havannah. 1876-7.
IV. ROCKINGHAM, SHBLBURNE AND THE YOUNGER
WILLIAM PITT.
A. Sources.
1. Manuscript.
The following Historical mss. Commission Reports indicate manuscript sources of
special value for this period :
10th Report, Appendix, Pt. vi. Abergavenny mss. Lord Braye's mss. London. 1887.
12th Report, Appendix, Pt. ix. Ketton mss. ; Donoughmore mss. London. 1891.
12th Report, Appendix, Pt. x, 1746-83. Charlemont Papers. London. 1891.
13th Report, Appendix, Pt. iii, 1782-90. Fortescue Papers. Vol. i. London.
1892. 14th Report;, Appendix, Pt. i. Rutland Papers. Vol. iii. London. 1894.
14th Report, Appendix, Pt. iv. Kenyon mss. London. 1894. 14th Report,
Appendix, Pt. v. Fortescue Papers. Vol. ii. 1791 to 1793. London. 1896.
ISlii Report, Appendix, Pt. v, 1781-9. Foljambe Papers. London. 1897.
16th Report, Appendix, Pt. vi, 1782-93. Carlisle Papers. London. 1897.
16th Report, Appendix, Pt. vii. Ailesbury mss, pp. 237-306. London. 1898.
Stopford-Sackville mss. London. 1904. Lothian Papers, Earl of Buckingham-
shire's Papers (1906). American mss., Royal Institution Papers (1906). Vol. u.
2. Printed Memoirs, Correspondence, etc.
Auckland, Lord. Journal and Correspondence. Ed. Bishop of Bath and Wells.
4 vols. London. 1861-2.
Buckingham and Chandos, Duke of. Memoirs of Courts and Cabinets of George lU,
2 vols. Loudon. 1863.
Burges, J. Bland, Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs. Letters, Correspondence
and Life. Ed. J. Button. London. 1886. [Docs.]
Burke, Edmund. Works. New edn. 6 vols. London. 1826.
Memoir of Life and Character. By J. Prior. 3rd edn. London. 1839.
Memoir. By T. Macknight. 3 vols. London. 1868-60.
Correspondence. Edd. Earl Fitzwilliam and General Sir R. Bourke. 4 vols.
1844.
Bibliography. 911
Burke, Edmund. Correspondence of Burke with Dr F. Lawrence. London.
1827.
Cornwallisj Marquis. Correspondence. Ed. C. Ross. 3 vols. London. 1869.
Eldon^ Earl of. Public and Private Life of. By Horace Twiss. 3 vols. London.
1844.
Fox, Charles James. Memorials and Correspondence. Ed. Lord John Russell.
4 vols. London. 1853.
Life. By Lord John Russell. 3 vols. London. 1869-67.
Speeches. 6 vols. London. 1816.
George III. Memoirs of the Life and Reign of. By J. Heneage Jesse. 3 vols.
London. 1867.
Correspondence with Lord North, 1768 to 1783. Ed. W Bodham Donne.
2 vols. London. 1867
Gibbon, Edward. Memoirs of my Life and Writings. Ed. G. Birkbeck Hill.
London. 1900.
Private Letters of, 1763-94. Ed. R. E. Prothero. 2 vols. London. 1896.
Grafton, A. H., third Duke of. Autobiogi-aphy and Political Correspondence.
Ed. Sir W. Anson. London. 1898.
Keith, Sir R. M. Memoirs. Ed. Mrs Smyth. 2 vols. London. 1849. [Docs.]
Leeds, Francis, fifth Duke of. Political Memoranda. Ed. O. Browning. London.
1884.
Lennox, Lady Sarah. Life and Letters, 1746-1826. Ed. Countess of Ilchester and
Lord Stavordale. 2 vols. London. 1904.
Mackintosh, Sir James. Memoirs. By his son R. J. Mackintosh. 2 vols. London.
1836.
Malmesbury, Earl of. Diaries and Correspondence. Ed. the third Earl of
Malmesbury. 4 vols. London. 1844.
Pitt, William (the younger). Life. By John Gi£Ford. 6 vols. Loudon. 1809.
Life. By Bishop William Tomline. 3 vols. 1821.
Life of. By Earl Stanhope. 4 vols. London. 1861-2.
Coi-responderice with Charles, Duke of Rutland, 1781-7. Ed. John, Duke
of Rutland. Edinburgh. 1890.
Correspondence with the Rev. C. WyvUI. Newcastle. 1796.
Speeches. 4 vols. London. 1806.
Some Chapters of his Life and Times. By Lord Ashbourne. 2nd edn.
London. 1898.
Rockingham, Marquis of. Memoirs of. Ed. the Earl of Albemarle. 2 vols.
London. 1862.
Rose, George. Diaries and Correspondence. Ed. L. V. Harcourt. 2 vols. London.
1860.
Sheridan, R. B. Speeches. London. 1863.
Wilberforce, William. Life. By Robert Wilberforce and Samuel Wilberforce.
6 vols. London. 1839.
Private Papers of Ed. A. M. Wilberforce. London. 1897.
Windham, William. Diary, 1784-1810. Ed. Mrs H. Baring. London. 1866.
Speeches. Ed. T. Amyot. 3 vols. London. 1812.
WraxaJl, Sir N. W. Historical Memoirs of his own time. 4 vols. London. 1836.
For American affairs the Revolutionary Diplomatic Correspondence of the United
States should be consulted. The whole course of the Peace negotiations, 1781-3, is
to be traced from day to day in this valuable publication, edited under the direction
of Congress, by Francis Wharton. New edition, 6 vols., by J. B. Moore, Washington,
1889. See also The Literature of American History by various writers. Ed.
J. N. James, London, 1902 ; a valuable bibliography.
912 Crreat Britain, 1766-93.
See also :
Correspondence and Public Papers of John Jay. Edited by Henry P. Johnston.
4 vols. New York. 1890-3. [Especially Vol. ii.]
' Documents relating to the Constitutional History of Canada. Canadian
Archives, 1769-91. Edd. A. Short and G. Doughty. Ottawa. 1907.
B. Secondary Works.
Browning, O. The Flight to Varennes, and other historical essays. London. 1892.
Burke, Edmund. Works. New edition. 16 vols. London. 1826.
Butenvalj Comte C. A. Precis du Traite de Commerce, 1786. Paris. 1869.
Clarkson, S. History of the Kise, Progress and Accomplishment of the Abolition
of the African Slave Trade. 2nd edn. London. 1839.
Coquelle, P. L' Alliance Franco-HoUandaise. 1736-88. 2 vols. Paris. 1902.
[Docs.]
Fitzmaurice, Lord. , Life of the Earl of Shelburne. 3 vols. London. 1876.
Hammond, J. L. Le B. Charles James Fox, a Political Study. London. 1903.
Harris, W. History of the Radical Party in Parliament. London. 1886.
Howard, John. The State and the Prisons. London. 1792.
Kent, C. B. R. The English Radicals, a historical sketch. London. 1899.
Lewis, Sir George Cornewall. Essays on the administrations of Great Britain from
1783 to 1830. Ed. Sir Edmund Head, Bart. London. 1864.
Macaulay, Lord. Life of Pitt. Miscellaneous Works. Vol. ii. London. 1860.
Minto, Countess of. Hugh Elliot. A Memoir. Edinburgh. 1868.
Morley, John (Viscount Morley of Blackburn). Burke, a Study. London. 1893.
Political Disquisitions. London. 1774.
Porritt, E. and A. G. The Unreformed House of Commons. 2 vols. Cambridge.
1903.
Rae, W. Eraser. Life of Richard Brinsley Sheridan. 2 vols. London. 1896.
Rose, Dr J. H. Great Britain and the Dutch Question, 1787-8. American
Historical Review. Vol. xiv. No. 2. New York. Jan. 1909.
The Mission of William Grenville to the Hague and Versailles, 1787.
English Historical Review. Vol. xxiv. London. April, 1909.
Rosebery, Lord. Life of Pitt. London, 1891.
Ryerson, A. E. Loyalists in America and their times. 2 vols. Toronto. 1880.
Salisbury, Marquis of. Stanhope's Life of Pitt. Essays from the Quarterly Review.
London. 1905.
Seeley, Sir J. R. The Expansion of England. Two courses of Lectures at Cambridge.
London. 1900.
Smith, Edward. The Story of the English Jacobins. London. 1881.
Stirling, A. M. W. Coke of Norfolk [Coke, T. W., Earl of Leicester] and his
Friends. 2 vols. London. 1908.
Van Tyne, C. H. The Loyalists in the American Revolution. New York. 1902.
Wilkins, W. H. George IV and Mrs Fitzherbert. 2 vols. London. 1906.
913
CHAPTER XIV.
IRELAND FROM 1700-89,
I. ORIGINAL SOURCES.
In adclition to the State Papers, Ireland, preserved in the Record Office, Fetter
Lane, comprising Vols. 363-465, and covering the period 1702 to 1779, after which
date the permission of the Home Secretary is required for their inspection, the chief
sources of information are as follows :
1. The Correspondence of Archbishop King (1696-1727) in 14 vols, preserved
in the Library of Trinity College, Dublin (N. i. 7-9, and N. in. 1-11), of which
considerable use was made by Bishop Mant in his History of the Church of Ireland.
Vol. II. London. 1840.
2. The Correspondence of Edward Southwell (Secretary of State for Ireland,
1702-30) with Dr Marmaduke Coghill, preserved in the British Museum, Addi-
tional Mss. 21,122-3. Other Southwell mss. were acquired by the Public Record
Office, Dublin, in 1898. (Cf. Thirtieth Report of the Deputy Keeper of Public
Records in Ireland. App. i. pp. 44^58.)
3. The Newcastle Correspondence in the British Museum, Additional mss.
32,687 — 32,738 ("Home Correspondence"), constitutes a perfect mine of information
for the affairs of Ireland from 1724-67. Some of Archbishop Stone's letters in this
collection have been printed by C. Litton Falkiner in the English Historical Review,
Vol. XX.
4. The Pelham Correspondence, likewise in the British Museum, including the
correspondence of Thomas Pelham (Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant 1783-4 and
1795-8). Additional mss. 33,100—33,105.
6. The Documents preserved in the Public Record Office, Dublin, falling into
four main groups, viz. :
(a) British Departmental Correspondence (1683-1758), being the communica-
tions and letters from the Official Departments in England to the Irish Government.
There is a ms. Calendar of this series.
(6) Irish Departmental Correspondence (1685-1797), being the communica-
tions from the Irish Government to the Official Departments in England.
(c) Irish Civil Correspondence, called "Country Letters," in 97 vols. (1685-
1827) ; chiefly interesting for the period 1700-60, as containing information on the
state of the country, details respecting the Whiteboys, Wildgeese, Rapparees,
murders, abductions, etc. It was from these Letters that Froude wrote the most
romantic chapters in his History of the English in Ireland.
(d) A Collection of State Papers (1786-1808), in 51 cartons ; forming a con-
necting link between the Departmental Correspondence and the series of modern
State Papers, beginning in 1821.
6. Other sources of information are noticed below under Reports of the
Historical uss. Commission; but attention may be directed to the following
minor items:
(a) Additional ms. 6117, ff. 1-186, containing Bishop Synge's letters to Arch-
bishop Wake (1703-26).
0. M. H. VI. OH. XIV. 58
914 Ireland from 1700-89-
(6) Egerton ms. 77 : list of Converts and Protestant Settlers, 1660-1772.
(c) Egerton ms. 201 : some original private correspondence.
{d) Egerton ms. 917, with some letters from King to Southwell (from the
Southwell Collection).
(e) Lansdowne ms. 242, containing some miscellaneous papers relating to
Ireland during the period.
(/) A Collection of Law Reports (1697-1793), and the Converts' Roll, pre-
served in the Puhlic Record Office, Dublin.
The magnificent series of contemporary pamphlets, unfortunately still uncata-
logued, is contained in the Haliday Collection, in the Royal Irish Academy, Dublin.
A catalogue of the Bradshaw Collection of Irish books and pamphlets in the Cam-
bridge University Library, many of which belong to the eighteenth century, is
being prepared for publication.
IL CONTEMPORARY AUTHORITIES, INCLUDING PAMPHLETS.
Abernethy, J. Scarce and valuable Tracts. London. 1761.
Abstract, an, of the. . .Protestant and Popish families in. . .Ireland, etc. Dublin. 1736.
Account, an, of the Charity Schools in Ireland. Dublin. 1730.
Account, an, of the Progress of Charles Coote, Esq. [against the Oakboys].
Dublin. 1763.
Account, the Settled: or, a Balance struck between the Irish Propositions... and
the English Resolutions. Dublin. 1785.
Address, an, from a noble Lord to the People of Ireland. [Dublin 7] 1770.
Address, an, to the Independent Members of the House of Commons.. .on...
establishing a Regency. Dublin. 1789.
Alarm, an, to the unprejudiced and well-minded Protestants... upon... the White
Boys. Cork. 1762.
Albemarle, Earl of. Memoirs of the Marquis of Rockingham. London. 1852.
Answer, an, to... A Vindication of Marriage, etc. Dublin. 1704.
Answer, an, to a late proposal for uniting the Kingdoms of Great Britain and
Ireland. Dublin. 1761.
Answer, an, to.. .A free and candid Inquiry, etc. Dublin. 1763.
Answer, an, to. ..the Proceedings of the House of Commons in rejecting the altered
' ■ Money Bill. ..vindicated. Dublin. 1774.
Answer, an, to the Observations on the Mutiny Bill. Dublin. 1781.
Answer, an, to the Reply to the supposed Treasury Pamphlet, "The Proposed
System of Trade... explained." London. 1786.
Apology, an, of the French Refugees.. .in Ireland. Dublin. 1712.
Argument, an, upon the Woollen Manufacture... demonstrating that Ireland must
be.. .employed therein. London. 1737.
Arrangement, the, with Ireland considered. London. 1786.
Astraea, or a letter on the abuses in the administration of justice in Ireland.
Dublin. 1788.
Attempt, an, to prove that a free and open trade.. .would be... advantageous to both
Kingdoms. Exeter. 1763.
Auckland, Lord (W. Eden). Considerations submitted to the People of Ireland on
" ' their present condition, etc. Dublin. 1781.
Authenticus {pseud.). A defence of the Protestant Clergy in the South of Ireland
in answer to Mr Grattan. Dublin. 1788.
Baratariana. Fugitive Political Pieces published during the Administration of
Lord Townshend. Dublin. 1777.
Barrow, Sir J. life and Writings of Lord Macartney. London. 1807.
Bibliography. 915
Bedford, Correspondence of John, Duke of. (1742-70.) 3 vols. London. 1842.
Beresford, Correspondence of the Rt. Hon. J. 2 vols. London. 1854.
Berkeley, G. (Bishop of Cloyne). Works. Ed. G. N. Wright. 2 vols. Londoni
1843. Ed. A. C. Fraser. 4 vols. Oxford. 1871.
Both sides of the Gutter : or, the Humours of the Regency. London. 1789.
Boulter, H. (Archbishop of Dublin). Letters to several Ministers of State. 2 vols.
Dublin. 1770.
Brief Review, a, of the Incorporated Society for promoting English Protestant
Schools. Dublin. 1748.
Brooke, H. The Tryal of the Cause of the Roman Catholics, etc. Dublin. 1761.
[Browne, Sir J.] An Essay on Trade in general and on that of Ireland in par-
ticular. Dublin. 1728.
[ ] A scheme of the money matters of Ireland, etc. Dublin. 1729.
Buckingham, Duke of. Memoirs of the Courts and Cabinets of George III. 4 vols.
London. 1853.
Burdy, S. Life of the Rev. P. Skelton. London. 1792.
Burke, E. Works and Correspondence. 8 vols. London. 1852. (Bohn's Lib.)
6 vols. London. 1886.
Letters, Speeches and Tracts on Irish Affairs. Ed. M. Arnold. London. 1881.
[Burke, E..''] A reply to the Treasury pamphlet... "The proposed system of trade
with Ireland explained." London. 1785.
Bush, J. Hibernia Curiosa. London. 1769.
Caldwell, Sir J. Examination whether it is expedient to enable Papists to take
Real Securities. Dublin. 1764.
Debates on the affairs of Ireland in 1763 and 1764. 2 vols. London. 1766.
Proposal for employing children, etc. Dublin. 1771.
Inquiry into the Restrictions on the Trade of Ireland. Dublin. 1779.
[Campbell, T.] A Philosophical Survey of the South of Ireland. London. 1777.
Dublin. 1778.
Candid Inquiry, a, into the late Riots in Munster. Dublin. 1767.
Candid Review, a, of Mr Pitt's Twenty Resolutions. London. 1785.
Case, the, fairly stated relative to an Act lately passed against the exportation
of com. (6 Geo. HI, c. 18.) Dublin. 1766.
Case, the, of the Roman Catholics of Ireland. 1755.
Cavendish, Sir H. A Statement of the Public Accounts of Ireland. London. 1791.
Cavendish, W. (Duke of Devonshire). Letters which passed in Great Britain relative
to the Absentee Tax. Dublin. 1773.
Chatham, William Pitt, Earl of, Coi-respondence of. 4 vols. London. 1838.
Chesterfield, Earl of. Letters. 6 vols. London. 1779.
Miscellaneous Works. 2 vols. London. 1777.
Clarendon, R. V. A Sketch of the Revenue and Finances of Ireland. London.
1791.
Collection, a, of tracts concerning the present state of Ireland. London. 1729.
Commercial Resolutions, the,... vindicated. London. 1786.
Comparative View, a, of the Public Burdens of Great Britain and Ireland. London.
Dublin. 1779.
Complete Investigation, a, of Mr Eden's Treaty. Dublin. 1787.
Conduct, the, of the Dissenters of Ireland, etc. Dublin. 1712.
Conduct, the, of the Purse of Ireland. London. 1714.
Considerations... in answer to... Observations on the Mutiny Bill. Dublin. 1781.
Considerations on agriculture, etc. Dublin. 1730.
Considerations on the late Bill for payment of the remainder of the National Debt.
Dublin. 1754.
Considerations on the present calamities of this Kingdom, etc. Dublin. 1760.
CH. XIV. 68 — 2
916 Ireland from 1700-89.
Considerations on the expediency... of frequent new Parliaments in Ireland. Dublin.
1766.
Considerations on the independency of Ireland^ etc. London. 1779.
Considerations on the revenues of Ireland, etc. London. 17S7.
Considerations on..." Seasonable Remarks," etc. and "An Essay on Trade in
general," etc. London. 1728.
Considerations on the Political and Commercial Circumstances of Great Britain and
Ireland. London. 1787. '
Constitution, the, of Ireland, and Poynings' Laws explained. Dublin. 1770.
Counter-Appeal, a, to the people of Ireland. Dublin. 1749.
C[ourtie]rs, the. Apology... for their conduct this S-s-n of P-r-l-nt. Dublin. 1754.
Cox, Sir R. The present State of his Majesty's Revenue, etc. Dublin. 1762.
[Cox, Sir R.?] Previous promises inconsistent with a free Parliament, etc. Dublin.
1760.
Cox, W. (Archdeacon). Memoirs of the Life and Administration of Sir R. Walpole.
3 vols. London. 1798.
Memoirs of the Pelham Administration. London. 1829.
Crawford, W. History of Ireland. 2 vols. Strabane. 1783.
Crommelin, L. Essay towards improving the Hempen and Flaxen Manufacture of
Ireland. Dublin. 1734.
Crumpe, S. Essay on the best means of providing employment for the People.
London. 1793.
Curry, J. An Inquiry into the Causes of the late Riots in Munster. Dublin. 1766.
Historical and Critical Review of the Civil Wars in Ireland. Dublin. 1786.
Defence, a, of the Opposition with respect to their conduct on Irish Affairs, etc.
Dublin. 1785.
Defence, a, of the, . . People of Ireland in their. . .refusal of Mr Wood's copper money.
Dublin. 1724.
Delany, P. Account of the Laws in force for encouraging the residence of the
parochial clergy. Dublin. 1723.
Delany, Mrs, Autobiography and Correspondence of. Ed. Lady Uanover. London.
1861.
Derrick, S. Letters written from Leverpoole... Dublin, etc. Dublin. 1767.
"Dionysius." A Letter from Dionysius to the renowned Triumvirate, etc. Dublin.
1764.
Dissertation, a, on the enlargement of Tillage and erecting of Public Granaries.
Dublin. 1741.
Dissertation, a, on the present Bounty Laws for the encouragement of agriculture
in Ireland. Dublin. 1780.
"Drapier, M. B." A Letter... occasioned by. ..Thoughts on the Affairs of Ireland.
Dublin. 1754.
Dobbs, A. An Essay on the Trade... of Ireland. Dublin. 1729.
Dobbs, P. History of Irish Affairs from Oct. 12, 1779 to Sept. 16, 1782. Dublin.
1782.
Concise View of History and Prophecy. Dublin. 1800.
Dublin Spy, the. Dublin. 1753-4.
Dublin University Magazine (The). 1836. Dublin. 1833, etc.
Dunton, J. Some account of my Conversation in Ireland. London. 1699.
Eden, W. See Auckland, Lord.
Enquiry, an, how far it might be expedient... to permit the importation of Irish
Cattle. London. 1743.
Enquiry, an, into the policy of the Penal Laws, etc. London and Dublin. 1775.
Enquiry, an, into the. . . Progress of the linen manufacture in Ireland. Dublin. 1757.
Enquiry, an, into the causes of Popular Discontents in Ireland. London. 1804.
Bibliography. 917
Essay, an, concerning the establishment of a National Bank in Ireland. London.
1774.
Essay, an, on the Trade of Ireland, by the author of Seasonable Remarks. Dublin.
1729.
Essay, an, on the ancient and modern state of Ireland, etc. Dublin. 1769.
Essay, an, on the Character and Conduct of.. .Lord Viscount Townshend. London.
1771.
Few Thoughts, a, on the present posture of affairs in Ireland. Dublin. 1755.
Few Words, a, of advice to the Friends of Ireland, etc. Dublin. 1765.
Finishing Stroke, the. Dublin. 1764.
First Lines, the, of Ireland's Interest in the year 1780. Dublin. 1779.
Flood, H. A Letter.. .on the expediency... of the present Association... in favour of
our own manufectures. Dublin. 1779.
Flood, H. W. MemoirsoftheLifeof Henry Flood. Dublin. 1838.
Forman, C. A Defence of the Courage of the Irish Nation. Dublin. 1736.
Four Letters, originally written in French, relating to... Ireland. Dublin. 1739.
Fox, C. G. Memorials and Correspondence. Ed. Lord John Russell. 3 vols.
London. 1863.
Free and candid Inquiry, a,... addressed to.. .a Person of Distinction in the North
from a Gentleman in Town. Dublin. 1763.
[French, R.] The Constitution of Ireland and Poynings' Laws explained. Dublin.
1770.
Full Account, a, of the present dispute.. .between the Prerogatives of the Crown
and the Rights of the People. London and Dublin. 1764.
Gilbert, Sir J. T. Calendar of Ancient Records of Dublin. 11 vols. Dublin.
1889-1904.
Grattan, H. Speeches. 4 vols. London. 1822.
Miscellaneous Works. London. 1822.
Observations on the Mutiny Bill'. Dublin. 1781.
junr. Memoii's of the Life and Times of Henry Grattan. 5 vols. London.
1839-46.
[Gray, J.] A plan for finally settling the Government of Ireland upon Consti-
tutional principles. London and Dublin. 1786.
Grazier's Advocate, the, or Free Thoughts of Wool. Dublin. 1742.
Grenville Papers, the. Ed. W. J. Smith. 4 vols. London. 1862.
Groans, the, of Ireland, etc. Dublin. 1741.
Guatimozin's [i.e. F. Jebb] Letters on the Present State of Ireland. London. 1779.
Harcourt Papers, the. Ed. E. W. Harcourt. 14 vols. London. 1880-1906.
Hardy, F. Memoirs of the Earl of Charlemont. 2 vols. London. 1810.
HibeiTiiae Notitia: or a List of the present officers in Church and State, etc.
London. 1723.
Hibemia pacata [relating to the events of 1763]. Dublin. 1754.
Historical Essay, an, upon the loyalty of Presbyterians,,.in answer... to... The
Conduct of the Dissenters. Dublin. 1713.
Historical mss. Commission :
Report II, pp. 66-8. Puleston mss. ; with letters from Lord Barrymore, 1732-
46. See also Rep. xv, App. 7, pp. 307-43.
Report II, p. 99. Torrens mss., pointing at certain Parliamentary Reports
(1776-89), in 37 vols., now in the Library of Congress, Washington. Cf.
Eng. Hist. Review, xxiv, pp. 104-6.
Report II, p. 103. Willes mss. (Baron Willes' Letters, 1767-68).
Report nr, pp. 432-4. Howard's Parliamentary History of Ireland.
Report VI, p. 236. Lansdowne mss. (Correspondence of Earl Shelburne re-
lating to Ireland),
918 Ireland from 1700-89.
Report vm, p. 73 sqq. Portsmouth mss. (Sir Isaac Newton's letters on Wood's
Coiuag'e, etc.).
Report VIII, pp. 174-208. Emly mss. (Correspondence of E. S. Pery, Speaker
of the House of Commons), cont. in Rep. xiv, App. 9, pp. 155-99.
Report vm, pp. 441-92. O'Conor (Charles) of Balanagare mss. (Roman
Catholic agitation).
Report IX (Pt. in), pp. 34^67. Stopford Sackville mss. (Irish A£Eairs,
1731-83).
Report XII, App. 10 ; xni, App. 8. Charlemont mss. 2 vols.
Report XII, App. 9. Donoughmore mss. (Letters of J. Hely Hutchinson).
Report XII, App. 9. Smith (P. V.) mss. (Letters on the Commercial Treaty). '
Report XIII, App. 3. Fortescue mss. Vol. i (Correspondence of Lord Tempk,
afterwards Marquis of Buckingham).
Report XIV, App. 1. Rutland mss. Vol. iii (Correspondence of the Duke of
Rutland during his viceroyalty).
Report XV, App. 6. Carlisle mss.
History, the, of the Proceedings and Debates of the Volunteer Delegates... on the
subject of Parliamentary Reform. Dublin. 1784.
History of the Ministerial Conduct of the Chief Governors of Ireland. ..from.. .1688
to.. .1753. London. 1754.
Hitchcock, R. An historical view of the Irish Stage. 2 vols. Dublin. 1788-94.
Howard, G. E. A treatise of the Exchequer and revenue of Ireland. 2 vols.
Dublin. 1776.
A Letter to the Publick on the present posture of Affairs. Dublin. 1764.
A short Account of his Majesty's hereditary Revenue. 2nd edn. with additions.
Dublin. 1754.
Some questions upon the Legislative Constitution of Ireland. Dublin. 1770.
Humble Address, an, to the nobility, etc. [against a Union]. Dublin. 1761.
Humble Proposal, an, for.. .promoting Christian Knowledge among the poor natives
of... Ireland. Dublin. 1730.
Hunt, W. The Irish Parliament, 1775. London. 1907.
Hutchinson, J. H. Commercial Restraints of Ireland. Dublin. 1779. Ed.
W. G. Carroll. Dublin. 1882.
Impartial Thoughts on a Free Trade to Ireland. London. 1779.
Insula Sacra et Libera. A list of members... who voted for and against the altered
Money Bill. London. 1753.
Intelligencer, the. [Swift and Sheridan.] Dublin. 1729. 2nd edn. Loudon. 1730.
Irish Monitor, the. (April.) 2 vols. Dublin. 1879.
Journals of the House of Commons, Ireland.
Judgements, the, of God upon Ireland. Dublin. 1741.
Junius. Grand Council upon the Affairs of Ireland.
Knox, A. Essays on the Political Circumstances of Ireland. London. 1799.
[Knox, W.] Considerations on the State of Ireland. Dublin. 1778.
Laffan, J. Political Arithmetic of the Population. ..of Ireland. Dublin. 1786.
[Langrishe, Sir H.] Considerations on the Dependencies of Great Britain. Dublin,
1789.
Lascelles, R. Liber Munerum Publicorum Hiberniae. 2 vols. London. 1824-30.
Legal Considerations on the Regency as... it regards Ireland. London. 1789.
[Lelaud, J.] The case fairly stated: or an inquiry how far the clause;.. for dis-
charging the... National Debt... would have affected the liberties of the People.
Dublin. 1754.
Letter from a Prime Serjeant to a High Priest. Dublin. 1764.
Letter, a, from a Member of the House of Commons of Ireland to a gentleman of
the Long Robe in England, etc. London and Dublin. 1720.
Bibliography. 919
Letterj a,... containing some remarks on... "A free and candid Inquiry," etc.
Dublin. 1756.
Letter, a, from a Munster Layman... on the disturbances in the South. Dublin.
1787.
Letter, a, of advice to the I — sh Members. Dublin. 1763.
Letter, a, to Henry Flood on the State of the Representation in Ireland. Belfast.
1783.
Letter, a, to the Protestant Dissenters of Ireland. Dublin. 1745.
Letter, a, to the People of Ireland. ..on the effects of a Union. London. 1780.
Letter, a, to the People of Ireland on the... Fisheries. Dublin. 1776.
Letter, a [second and third].. .on the subject of Tythes. Dublin. 1778,
Letter, a,. ..relative to our present feuds and jealousies. Dublin. 1775.
Letter, a, upon. ..taxing the estates of Absentees. Dublin. 1773.
Letters from a country gentleman... to his Grace the Lord Primate. Dublin. 1741.
Letters of a Dungannon and Munster Delegate [on] Parliamentary Reform^ Dublin.
1784.
Life, character and parliamentary conduct of...H. Boyle [Earl of Shannon]. . Dublin.
1754.
List, a, of the Members. ..who voted on the question previous to the expulsion of
A. J. Nevill, Esq. London. 1763.
[Lodge, J.] The usage of holding Parliaments and passing Bills of Supply. Dublin
and London. 1770.
Long History, a, of a certain Session of a certain Parliament in a certain Kingdom,
in 1713. Dublin. 1714.
Lucas, C. Works. 2 vols. London. 1751.
Luckqmbe, P. A Tour through Ireland. London. 1780.
[Macartney, Lord.] An Account of Ireland in 1733. London. 1733.
[MacBride, J.] A Vindication of marriage as solemnized by Presbyterians} etc.
Dublin. 1702.
MacGeoghegan, Abbe. Histoire d'Irlande. 3 vols. Amsterdam. 1768-63,
[Macnally, L.] The Claims of Ireland... vindicated. London. 1782.
Madden, S. Proposal for the general encoui-agement of learning in Dublin College.
Dublin. 1732.
Reflections and resolutions proper for the Gentlemen of Ireland, etc. Dublin.
1738. Reprinted. Dublin. 1816.
Management, the, of the Revenue, etc. Dublin. 1768. ;
Maxims relative to the present state of Ireland, 1767. Dublin. 1767.
[Maxwell, H.] An Essay upon an Union of Ireland with England. Dublin. , 1704.
McAulay, A. Enquiry into the legality of Pensions on the Irish Establishment.
London. 1763.
Method, a, to prevent... the running of wool from Ireland to France. London.
1746.
M[oles worth], R. L. V., Lord. Some considerations for promoting Agriculture,
etc. Dublin. 1723.
"Molineux." Some Thoughts on the Bill for the relief of tenants holding leases
for lives. Dublin. 1780.
Moran, P. F. (Cardinal). Spicilegium Ossoriense. 3 vols. London. 18747:8.
Vol. III.
Mountmorres, Lord. Impartial Reflections upon... the Trade between Great Britain
and Ireland. London. 1786.
Mullala, J. View of Irish Affairs since the Revolution. Dublin. 1795. ,
[Nevill, A. J.] Some Hints on Trade, Money and Credit. Dublin. 1762.
Newenham, T. Statistical and Historical Inquiry into the Progress... of Population
in Ireland. London. 1806.
920 Ireland from 1700-89.
Newenhanij T, View of the Natural, Political and Commercial Circumstances of
Ireland. London. 1809.
Nicholson, E. A Method of Charity Schools in Ireland. Dublin. 1712.
O'Brien, Sir L. The Resolutions of England and Ireland relative to Commercial
Intercourse. Dublin. 1785.
A gleam of Comfort to this distracted Empire. London. 1786.
Observations on raising the value of money, etc. Dublin. 1718.
Observations on, and a short history of, Irish Banks and Bankers, by a Grentleman
in Trade. Dublin. 1760.
Observations made by the Commissioners... of the Barracks throughout Ireland.
Dublin. 1760.
Observations on the Popery Laws. Dublin. 1771.
Observations on the Finances and Trade of Ireland. Dublin. 1776.
O'Conor, M. The dangers of Popery to the present Government examined. Dublin.
1761.
Office, the, and power of a judge in Ireland. ..explained. Dublin. 1766.
O'Leary, A. Six Tracts on Historical and Religious Questions. Dublin. 1781.
Parliamentary Register, the. [Irish Parliamentary Debates.] 16 vols. Dublin.
1784-96.
Patriot Miscellany : or a Collection of Essays relative to the political contests In
Ireland daring the administration of the Duke of Dorset. 2 vols. Dublin.
1756.
Patriot Queries, occasioned by a late libel.. ."Querie to the People of Ireland."
Dublin. 1764.
Pedlar's Letter, the, to the Bishops and Clergy of Ireland. Dublin. 1760.
[Pery, E. S.] Letters from an Armenian in Ireland (1756). London. 1757.
Pococke, R. (Bishop of Meath). Tour in Ireland in 1752. Ed. G; T. Stokes.
Dublin. 1891.
Prescription Sacred : or reasons for opposing... tythes of agistment. Dublin. 1736.
Present Politics, the, of Ireland. London. 1786.
Present State, the, of Ireland considered. Dublin. 1780.
Present State, the, of Religion in Ireland. London. 1712 ?
Prior, T. A List of the Absentees of Ireland, etc. Dublin. 1729.
Observations on Coin in general, etc. Dublin. 1729.
An Essay to encourage... the linen Manufacture... by Premiums. Dublin.
1749.
Proceeding, the, of the House of Commons.. .in rejecting the altered Money Bill...
vindicated. Dublin. 1764.
Proceedings relative to the Ulster Assembly of Volunteers. Belfast. 1783.
Property inviolable : or some remarks upon.. ."Prescription Sacred." Dublin. 1736.
Proposal, a, for lessening the excessive price of Bread Corn. Dublin. 1741.
Proposal, a, for uniting the Kingdoms of Great Britain and Ireland. London. 1761.
Proposals humbly offered to Parliament for the restoration of cash and public credit
to Ireland. Dublin. 1760.
Proposed System, the, of Trade with Ireland explained. Dublin. 1785.
Protestant Interest, the, cbnsidered, etc. Dublin. 1757.
Queries relating to the new Half-Pence. Dublin. 1737.
Queries relative to... some of the present laws of Ireland. 2nd edn. Dublin. 1761.
Question, a, to be considered previous to the rejection of the Bill for paying off the
National Debt, etc. Dublin. 1754.
R., T. Original Letters :...to the Rt. Hon. H. Flood. [London.] 1820.
Radcliffe, S. A serious Inquiry whether a toleration of Popery should be enacted.
Dublin. 1727.
Reasons. . .against. . .reducing the Interest of Money. Dublin. 1765.
Bibliography. 921
Reasons why we should not lower the coins now current in this Kingdom, etc.
Duhlin. 1729.
Reflections on the National Deht, with reasons for reducing the legal Interest, etc.
Dublin. 1731.
Remarks on..." Considerations on the late BUI for payment," etc. Dublin. I7fi4.
Representation, a, of the present state of Religion... agreed to by both Houses of
Convocation. Dublin. 1712.
Resolutions, the, of the House of Commons... relating to the Lord Chancellor
Phipps, examined, etc. London. 1714.
Richardson, J. Seaumora ar na priom phoncihh na chreideamh. London.
1711.
A Proposal for the Conversion of the Popish natives of Ireland. Dublin.
1712.
The Polly of Pilgrimages in Ireland. Dublin. 1727.
Short History of the attempts to convert the Popish natives of Ireland.
London. 1712. 2nd edn. 1713.
[Robinson, C] Considerations on the late Bill for payment of the... National Debt,
etc. Dublin. 1764.
[Rose, G.] The proposed system of trade with Ireland explained. ["Treasury
pamphlet."] London. 1786.
IUy-1 Mistake, the : or, a Catechism for the I — sh Parliament. London. 1753.
Rutty, J. History of the Quakers in Ireland. Dublin. 1751. 2nd edn. 1800.
Rutland, Duke of. Correspondence between W. Pitt and Charles, Duke of Rutland
(1781-7). London. 1890.
S., T. Impartial Thoughts on a Free Trade to... Ireland. London. 1789.
Seasonable Advice to the Friends of Ireland on the present Crisis. Dublin. 1755.
Seasonable Advice to the People of Ireland during the recent recess. Dublin.
1780.
Second Letter, a, to a gentleman of the long robe in Great Britain. Dublin. 1720.
Secret History, the, of the two last memorable S-ss-ons of Parliament. Dublin.
1754.
Secret History, the, and Memoirs of the Barracks of Ireland. London. 1747.
Seward, W. W. Rights of the People asserted. Dublin. 1783.
Collectanea Politica. 3 vols. Dublin. 1801-4.
Sheffield, Lord. Observations on the Trade of Ireland. London. 1786.
Short Account, a, of the reasons of the intended alteration of the value of the coins
current in this Kingdom. Dublin. 1729.
Short, a, and easy method of preventing the clandestine exportation of wool, etc.
London. 1746.
Short History, a, of the Opposition to the present time, etc. Dublin. 1796.
Short Revue, a, of the several pamphlets. ..on the subject of Coin, etc. Dublin.
1730.
Short Tour, a : or, an impartial and accurate Description of the county Clare. 1779.
Short View, a, of the Proposals. ..for a final adjustment of the Commercial System,
etc. London. 1785.
Simon, J. Historical Account of Irish Coins. Dublin. 1749.
Skelton, P. Complete Works (with Burd/s Life). 6 vols. London. 1824.
Sketch, a, of the history of two Acts... 2nd and 8th of Queen Anne, to prevent the
further growth of Popery. Loudon. 1778.
Smith, J. Memoirs of Wool. London. 1747.
Some Arguments for limiting the duration of Parliaments. Dublin. 1764.
Some Considerations on the Laws which incapacitate Papists from purchasing lands.
Dublin. 1739.
Some Facts... relative to the &te of the late Linen Bill. Dublin. 1763,
922 Ireland from 1700-89.
Some farther account of the... Disputes in Ireland about Farthings, etc. London.
1724.
Some hints for the better promoting of the laws in this Kingdom, etc. Dublin.
1766.
Some important frauds.. .in trade.. .laid open. London. 1746.
Some observations on the circumstances of Ireland. P Dublin. 1769.]
Some observations relative to the late Bill for paying off... the National Debt of
Ireland. 2nd edn. Dublin. 1764.
Some proposals humbly offered. ..for the advancement of Learning. Dublin. 1707.
Some thoughts... towards an Union, etc. London. 1708.
Some thoughts on the general improvement of Ireland, etc. Dublin. 1758.
Some thoughts on the... Linen manufacture, etc. Dublin. 1739.
Some thoughts on the tillage of Ireland, etc. London. 1737.
State of the different Interests in the House of Commons, etc.
State, a, of the Public Revenues and Expence, 1761-69. Dublin. 1769.
State, the, of Ireland laid open, etc. London. 1746.
Statutes at Large. (Ireland.) 8 vols. Dublin. 1765. 20 vols. Dublin. 1786-1801.
Stephenson, R. An inquiry into the state and progress of the Linen Manu&cture
of Ireland. Dublin. 1767.
Stevens, R. Inquiry into the abuses of the Chartered Schools in Ireland. 1817.
Strictures on " Considerations submitted to the People of Ireland," etc. Dublin.
1781.
Swift (Dean). Works. Ed. Sir W. Scott. 19 vols. London. 1824.
Prose Works. Ed. Temple. (Bohn's Lib.) 8 vols. London. 1897.
[Swift, Dean?] Schemes from Ireland, for the benefit of the body natural, ecclesi-
astical and politick. London. 1732.
Synge, E. (Archbishop of Tuam). A Defence of the Established Church... in answer
to.. ."A Vindication of Marriage," etc. Dublin. 1706.
An account of the Charity Schools in Ireland. Dublin. 1719. Another
edition under the title: Methods of erecting... Charity Schools. Dublin. 1721.
Taaffe, Viscount. Observations on Affairs of Ireland. Dublin. 1766.
Temple, Sir W. Works. (Essay on the Advancement of Trade.) Vol. m.
London. 1764.
Thoughts, English and Irish, on the Pension List of Ireland. London. 1770.
Thoughts on the Affairs of Ireland, etc. London. 1754.
Thoughts on... the establishment of a National Bank in Ireland. London. 1780.
Thoughts on the establishment of new manufactures in Ireland. Dublin. 1783.
To all the good people of Ireland, friendly and seasonable Advice. Dublin. 1766.
Tour, a, through Ireland by two English Gentlemen. London. 1748.
Townshend, Marquis. Meditations upon a late Excursion in Ireland. 1767.
Trant, D. Observations on the late Proceedings in the Parliament of Ireland on
the question of a Regency. Dublin. 1789.
Tribune, the. Ed. P. Delany. Dublin. 1729.
Tucker, J, Reflections on the Present Matters in Dispute between Great Britain
and Ireland. London. 1785.
Twiss, R. A Tour in Ireland in 1776. Dublin. 1776.
Ulster Journal of Archaeology, the. 9 vols. Belfast. 1853-61. Vol. i: The
French Settlers in Ireland. Vol. lu: Contributions towards a History of
Irish Commerce.
Universal Advertiser, the. Dublin. 1763, etc.
Usurpations, the, of England the chief sources of the Miseries of Ireland. London.
1780.
Utility, the, of an Union between Great Britain and Ireland. London. 1787.
View, a, of the present State of Ireland, etc. London. 1780.
Bibliography. 923
Wallace, T. An Essay on the Manufactures of Ireland. Dublin. 1798.
Walpole, H. Memoirs of the reign of George 11. London. 1846.
Memoirs of George III. Ed. Barlser. London.
Journals of the reign of George III. Ed. Doran. London. 1859.
Letters. Ed. P. Cunningham. London. 1857-9.
Webber, S. Short Account of... our Woollen Manufacturies, etc. London. 1739.
Wesley, J. Journals. 4 vols. London. 1827.
WoodfaU, W. Debate in the Irish House of Commons (Aug. 12, 1785); Dublin.
1786.
Woodward, R. (Bishop of Cloyne). A Scheme for estabUshiug Poor-Houses in...
Ireland. Dublin. 1768.
Present State of the Church of Ireland, etc. Dublin. 1787.
Wraxall, Sir N. W. Historical and Posthumous Memoirs. 6 vols. London. 1884.
Young, A. A Tour in Ireland (1776-9). London. 1780. Ed. A. W. Hutton.
(Bohn's Lib.) 2 vols. London. 1892.
III. LATER AUTHORITIES.
Agnew, D. C. A. Protestant Exiles from France. 2 vols. Edinburgh. 1871.
Ashbourne, Lord. Pitt : Some Chapters of his Life and Times. London. 1898.
Ball, J. T. Historical Review ofthe Legislative Systems.. .in Ireland. Dublin. 1882.
Barrington, Sir J. Rise and Fall of the Irish Nation. Dublin. 1843.
Bellesheim, A. Geschichte der katholischen Kirche in Irland. 3 vols. Mainz.
1891.
Benn, G. History of the town of Belfast. 2 vols. London. 1877-80.
Bonn, M. J. Die englische Kolonisation in Irland. 2 vols. Berlin. 1906.
Brenan, M. J. Ecclesiastical History of Ireland. 2 vols. Dublin. 1840.
Buckley, M. B. Life and Writings of A. O'Leary. Dublin. 1868.
Cairnes, J. E. Political Essays. London. 1873.
Collins, C. Jonathan Swift, a Biographical and Critical Study. London. 1893.
Craik, Sir H. Life of Swift. London. 1885.
Crokerj C. Researches in the South of Ireland. London. 1824.
Cumberland, R. Memoirs by himself. London. 1806.
D' Alton, E. A. History of Ireland. London. 1906.
Dunlop, R. Life of H. Grattan. London. 1889.
England, T. R. Life of A. O'Leary. London. 1822.
Falkiner, C. Litton. Studies in Irish History and Biography. London. 1902.
Fitzmaurice, Lord. Life of the Earl of Shelbume. London. 1876.
Fraser, A. C. Life of Bishop Berkeley. Edinburgh. 1881.
Froude, J. A. The English in Ireland. 3 vols. London. 1895.
Hassencamp, R. Geschichte Irlands. Leipzig. 1886.
Hickaon, M. Old Kerry Records. London. 1872.
Ingram, T. D. Critical Examin-ition of Irish History. 2 vols. London. 1900.
Elillen, W. D. Ecclesiastical History of Ireland. London. 1875.
Lecky, W. E. H. Leaders of Public Opinion in Ireland. New edn. 2 vols.
London. 1903.
History of England in the Eighteenth Century. 8 vols. London. 1877-90.
The Irish portion published separately under the title of: History of Ireland
in the Eighteenth Century. 6 vols. London. 1892.
Lewis, Sir G. C. Essay on Local Disturbances in Ireland. London. 1836.
Lindsay, J. The Coinage of Ireland, etc. London. 1839.
Madden, R. R. History of the Penal Laws. London. 1847.
History of Irish Periodical Literature. 2 vols. London. 1867.
924 Ireland from 1700-89.
Mant, R. (Bishop of Down). History of the Church of Ireland. 2 vols. London.
1840.
McNeven, T. History of the Volunteers of 17,82. Dublin. 1846.
Macpherson, D. Annals of Commerce. London. 1805.
Monck-Mason, W. History of St Patrick's Cathedral. Dublin. 1820.
Morley, J. Life of Burke. (B. M. L.) London. 1879.
Murray, A. E. History of the Commercial and Financial Relations between
England and Ireland. London. 1903.
Nicholls, Sir G. History of the Irish Poor Law. London. 1856.
O'Callaghan, J. C. History of the Irish Brigades in the Service of France.
Dublin. 1854.
O'Conor, M. Military History of the Irish Nation. Dublin. 1846.
O' Flanagan, J. R. Lives of the Lord Chancellors of Ireland. London. 1870.
Parnell, Sir H. History of the Penal Laws. London. 1822.
Plowden, F. Historical Review of the State of Ireland. 3 vols. London. 1803.
History of Ireland to the Union. 2 vols. London. 1812.
Porter, G. R. Progress of the Nation. 3 vols. London. 1836-43.
Prior, Sir J. Memoir of the Life of E. Burke. London. 1824.
Reid, J. S. History of the Presbyterian Church in Ireland. 3 vols. Belfast.
1867.
Ruding, R. Annals of the Coinage. 3 vols. London. 1840.
Smiles, S. The Huguenots in England and Ireland. London. 1867.
Smyth, C. J. Law Officers of Ireland. London. 1839.
Smyth, G. L. Ireland, Historical and StatisticaL 3 vols. London. 1844.
Stanhope, Earl. Life of William Pitt. 4 vols. London. 1862.
Stephen, Sir L. Life of Swift. (English Men of Letters.) London. 1882.
Studies in Irish History (1649-1776). Ed. B. O'Brien. Dublin. 1903.
Two Centuries of Irish History, 1691-1870. London. 1888. 2nd edn. enlarged.
London. 1907.
Wakefield, E. Account of Ireland, Statistical and Political. 2 vols. London. 1812.
Wiffen, J. H. Memoirs of the House of Russell. 2 vols. London. 1833.
Wyse, T. History of the Catholic Association. 2 vols. London. 1829.
925
CHAPTER XV.
INDIA.
L THE MOGHUL EMPIRE.
A. CONTEMPORARY MEMOIRS AND HISTORIES OF PRIMARY
IMPORTANCE.
AMulkurreenij Khojeh. The Memoirs of, who accompanied Nadir Shah, on his
return from Hindostan to Persia. Translated from the original Persian, by
F. Gladwin. Calcutta. 1788.
Abul Fazl. Ain-i-Akbari. Translated from the original Persian : Vol. i by
H. Blochmann, Vols, ii and ui by H. S. Jarrett. 3 vols. Calcutta. 1873,
1891, 1894.
Saber. Memoirs of Zehir-ed-Din Muhammed Baber, Emperor of Hindustan.
Translated by J. Leyden and W. Erskine. London. 1826.
Mdmoires de. Translated by A. P. de Courteille. 2 vols. Paris. 1871.
Elliot, Sir H. M. The History of India as told by its own Historians. Edited and
continued by J. Dowson. 8 vols. London. 1867-77.
Ferishta. History of the Dekkan from the first Mahummedan Conquests. Trans-
lated by J. Scott. 2 vols. Shrewsbury. 1794.
Hosain Khan. Letters of Aurangzeb. Bombay. 1889.
Jahangueir. Memoirs of the Emperor. Written by Himself. Translated by
Major D. Price. London. 1829. Reprint. Calcutta. 1904.
Jouher. The Tezkereh al Vakiat, or Private Memoirs of the Emperor Humayun.
Translated by Major Charles Stewart. London. 1832. Reprint. Calcutta. 1904.
Manucci, N. Storia do Mogor. 1663-1708. Ed. and translated by W. Irvine.
Indian Texts Series. 3 vols. Calcutta. 1907.
Mirza Muhammad Haidar. Tarikh-i-Rashidi. Translated and edited by E. Denison
Ross and N. Elias. London. 1896.
B. EARLY EUROPEAN TRAVELS, VOYAGES AND NARRATIVES.
Bernier, P. Histoire de la demiere Revolution des ^taia du Grand Mogol... Paris.
1670.
Travels in the Mogul Empire, a.d. 1656-68. Ed. by A. Constable. London.
1891.
Careri, Gemelli de. Voyage du Tour du Monde. Traduit de I'ltalien. Par
M. L. N. Vol. HI. 6 vols. Paris. 1727.
Fryer, John. A New Account of East India and Persia in eight letters, being nine
years Travels, begun 1672 and finished 1681... London. 1698.
926 India.
Hawkius, Sir R. The observations of, in his voyage into the South Sea in 1593...
The Hawkins Voyages... Ed. by C. R. Markham. Hakluyt Society (Series i,
vol. Lvii). London. 1878.
Mandelslo, J. A. de. ITie Voyages and Travels of, into the East Indies. Begun
in... 1638 and finish'd in 1640. Rendered into English by John Davies.
London. 1662.
Ovington, F. A. A voyage to Suratt in the year 1689. London. 1696.
Roe, Sir Thomas. Journal of his Embassy to the Great Mogul, 1615-9. Ed. from
the contemporary records, by W. Foster. 2 vols. Hakluyt Society (Series ii,
vols. I and ii). London. 1899.
Tavernier, J. B. Les Six Voys^es de Jean Baptiste Tavernier... 2 vols. Paris.
1676.
Terry, Edward. A Voyage to East India. London. 1656.
Valle, Pietro della. Viaggi di. 2 vols. Rome. 1662-3.
C. EARLY WORKS OF SECONDARY IMPORTANCE.
Catrou, Fran9ois. Histoire Generale de I'Empire du Mogol... Paris. 1715.
Dow, Alexander. The History of Hindostan. Translated from the Persian. 3 vols.
London. 1770.
Francklin, W. A History of the reign of Shah-Aulum. London. 1798.
Eraser, J. The History of Nadir Shah. London. 1770.
Gholam-Hossein-Khan. Seir Mutaqharin. Translated from the Persian. 3 vols.
Calcutta. 1789.
Gladwin, F. The History of Hindostan during the reigns of Jehangir, Shahjehan,
and Aurungzeb. Calcutta. 1788.
Jones, Sir William. The history of the life of Nader Shah, King of Persia.
London. 1773.
La Croix, P. de. Histoire de Timur-Bec. 4 vols. Delft. 1723.
Orme, Robert. Historical Fragments of the Mogul Empire... 2 vols. London.
1782.
D. LATER WORKS.
Caldecott, R. M. The Life of Baber. London. 1844.
Duff, James Grant. A History of the Mahrattas. 3 vols. London. 1826.
Elphinstone, Mountstuart. The History of India, The Hindu and Mahometan
Periods. With notes and additions by E. B. Cowell. London. 1905.
Erskine, W. A History of India under the reigns of the first two sovereigns of the
House of Taimur, Baber and Humayun. 2 vols. London. 1854.
Holden, E. S. The Mogul Emperors of Hindustan. New York. 1895.
Irvine, W. The Army of the Indian Moghuls. London. 1903.
Keene, H. G. A Sketch of the History of Hindustan... London. 1886.
The Moghul Empire. London. 1866.
The Fall of the Moghul Empire. London. 1876.
MacGregor, W. L. The History of the Sikhs. 2 vols. London. 1846.
Malcolm, Sir J. A Sketch of the Sikhs. London. 1812.
Noer, P. A., Count of The Emperor Akbar. Translated by A. S. Beveridge.
2 vols. Calcutta. 1890.
Owen, S. J. India on the eve of the British Conquest. London. 1872.
Poole, S. L. History of the Moghul Emperors of Hindustan, illustrated by their
coins. Westminster. 1892.
Bibliography. 927
Poole, S. L. Babar. Rulers of India Series. Oxford. 1899.
Aurangzib. Rulers of India Series. Oxford. 1896.
Stewart, Charles. The History of Bengal. London. 1813.
Thomas, E. The chronicles of the Pathan Kings of Delhi. London. 1871.
The Revenue Resources of the Mughal Empire... 1693-1 707. London. 1871.
Tod, James. Annals and Antiquities of Rajast'han or the Central and Southern
Rajpoot States of India. 2 vols. London. 1829-32.
Wilks, Mark. Historical Sketches of the South of India in an attempt to trace the
History of Mysoor. 3 vols. London. 1810-7.
II. INDIA, 1720-85.
A. THE ENGLISH IN INDIA.
(1) Unpublished Material.
The India OflBce contains a great volume of ms. Records consisting of the Court
Minutes of the East India Company, copies of Despatches to the Presidencies of
Bengal, Bombay, and Madras, Letters received from the various settlements in
India, and the Consultations, Ledgers, and Proceedings of the Presidential Councils.
There may be also mentioned the Orme Papers, Collections of Charters, Treaties,
and Parchment records, Dutch records, including transcripts from the Hague, the
series known as Home Miscellaneous, and records collected under the heading of
The French in India, especially the Collections numbered 2, 3, and 4.
The Record Offices of Bengal, Bombay, and Madras also contain an immense
amount of material, much of which is being gradually calendared and printed by
the Government of India.
The Public Record Office contains collections of Miscellaneous Correspondence
under the title Colonial Office Records, East Indies, and there are some further
papers among the Treasury Records.
Among the many mss. in the British Museum may be mentioned Clive's corre-'
spondence with the Duke of Newcastle, the official and private correspondence and
papers of Warren Hastings, papers relating to his Impeachment and Trial, and
various letters of Mrs Hastings.
The Clive papers are in the possession of the Earl of Powis.
The Letters and Diaries of Warren Hastings are in the Victoria Hall, Calcutta.
(2) Reoobd Publications.
Forrest, G. W. Selections from the Letters, Despatches, and other State Papers
preserved in the Bombay Secretariat. Home Series. Bombay. 1887.
Maratha Series. Bombay. 1885.
Selections from the Letters, Despatches, and other State Papers preserved in
the Foreign Department of the Government of India. 1772-85. 3 vols.
Calcutta. 1890.
Hill, S. C. Bengal in 1756-7. Indian Records Series. 3 vols. London. 1905.
Long, J. Selections from Unpublished Records of Government for the years
1748-67. Calcutta. 1869.
Wheeler, J. T. Madras in the Olden Time. 3 vols. Madras. 1861.
Wilson, C. R. The early annals of the English in Bengal. 2 vols. Calcutta.
1895-1900.
Old Fort William in Bengal. Indian Records Series. 2 vols. London. 1906.
928 India.
(3) Treaties, Paruamentaby Reports', Debates, Speeches etc.
A Collection of Treaties, Engagements and Sunnuds relating to India and neigh-
bouring countries. Ed. by Sir C. Aitchison. 9 vols, and Index volume-
Calcutta. 1892.
Bond, E. A. Speeches of the Managers and Counsel in the Trial of Warren
Hastings. 4 vols. London. 1859-61.
Hansard's Parliamentary History. Vols, viii sqq. London. 1812, etc.
History of the Trial of Warren Hastings, containing the whole of the proceedings
and debates in both Houses of Parliament... 1796.
Journals of the House of Commons.
Journals of the House of Lords.
Minutes of the Evidence taken at the Trial of Warren Hastings. London. 1788-94.
Reports (i-v) of the Select Committee of the House of Commons. May 26, 1772-
June 18, 1773.
Reports (i-iz) of the Committee of Secrecy appointed by the House of Commons.
Dec. 7, 1772-June 30, 1773.
Reports (i-vi) of the Committee of Secrecy on the causes of the war in the Carnatic.
1781-2.
. Reports (i-xi) of the Select Committee on the administration of Justice in Bengal,
Behar, and Orissa. 1782-3.
(4) Contemporab? Works and Pamphlets.
Advantages of Peace and Commerce with some remarks on the East India Trade.
London. 1729.
Authentic and faithful history of that arch-pyrate, Angria. London. 1756.
Bolts, W. Considerations on India Affairs. 3 vols. London. 1772-6.
Broome, Ralph. A comparative review of the administration of Mr Hastings and
Mr Dundas. London. 1791.
Cambridge, R. O. An account of the war in India between the English and French
on the coast of Coromandel. London. 1761.
Caraccioli, C. The life of Robert, Lord Clive. 4 vols. London. 1776.
Comparative view, a, of the Dutch, French, and English East India Companies.
1770.
Complete History of the War in India, a. London. 1761.
Debates in the Asiatic Assembly. London. 1767.
Downing, Clement. A compendious history of the Indian wars with an account of
the rise, progress, and forces of Angria the pyrate... London. 1737.
Essay, an, on the East India trade and its importance to the kingdom. London.
1770.
Five letters from a free merchant in Bengal to Warren Hastings. London. 1783.
FuUarton, W. A view of the English interests in India and an account of the
military operations in the southern parts of the peninsula. London. 1788.
Hamilton, C. An historical relation of the origin, progress, and final dissolution
of the government of the Rohilla Afghans. London. 1787.
Hastings, Warren. A narrative of the Insurrection which happened in the
Zemeendary of Benares. Calcutta. 1782.
Memoirs relative to the state of India. London. 1786.
Letters of, to his wife. Ed. by S. C, Grier. London. 1905.
Holwell, J. Z. Narrative of the deplorable deaths of the English gentlemen and
others who were soffocated in the Black Hole... London. 1768.
Bibliography. 929
Holwell, J. Z. Interesting historical events... London. 1765.
Ives, Edward. A voyage from England to India. London. 1773.
Johnstone, J. A letter to the Proprietors of East India stock. London. 1766.
^-^ Thoughts on our acquisitions in the East Indies particularly respecting
Bengal. 1771.
Letter, a, to a Proprietor of the East India Company. London. 1760.
Letters of Albanicus to the people of England on the partiality and injustice of the
charges brought against Warren Hastings. London. 1786.
Letters from Simpkin the Second... containing an humble description of the trial of
Warren Hastings. London. 1792.
Macpherson, J. The history and management of the East India Company. London.
1779.
Moodie, J. Remarks on the most important military operations... on the western
side of Hindoostan in 1783-4. 1788.
Munro, Innes. A narrative of the military operations on the Coromandel Coast.
London. 1789.
Narrative, a, of the transactions of the British squadrons in the East Indies...
comprehending a particular account of the loss of Madras... By an officer
who serv'd in those squadrons. London. 1761.
Oakes, H. An authentic narrative of the treatment of the English by Tippoo Saib.
1786.
Observations on the present state of the East India Company and on the measures
to be pursued for ensuring its permanency and augmenting its commerce.
London. 1771.
Origin, the, and authentic narrative of the present Maratha war and also the late
Rohilla war in 1773 and 1774. London. 1781.
Original papers relative to the disturbances in Bengal. 2 vols. London. 1766.
Orme, Robert. A history of the military transactions of the British nation in
Indostan. 2 vols. London. 1778.
Pigot, Lord, a defence of. London. 1776.
Proposals for relieving the sufferers of the South Sea Company, for the benefit of
that of East India. 1721.
Robson, F. The life of Hyder Ali. London. 1786.
Rous, G. The restoration of the King of Tanjore considered. 3 vols. 1777.
Scheme, a, for raising .£3,200,000 for the service of the Government by redeeming
the fund and trade now enjoyed by the East India Company... 1730.
Scrafton, Luke. Reflections on the Government of Indostan. London. 1763.
Some considerations on the nature and importance of the East India trade. London.
1728.
Some thoughts on the present state of our trade to India. By a merchant of
London. 1764.
Stanhope, P. D. Genuine memoirs of Asiaticus. London. 1786.
Sulivan, R. J. An analysis of the political history of India. London. 1779.
Thompson, H. F. The intrigues of a Nabob. 1780.
Tiemey, G. The real situation of the East India Company. London. 1787.
Vansittart, H. A narrative of the transactions in Bengal. 3 vols. Loudon.
1766.
Verelst, H. A view of the rise, progress and present state of the English govern-
ment in Bengal... Loudon. 1772.
Vindication, a, of Mr Holwell's character. London. 1764.
Other contemporary pamphlets, too numerous to detail, may be found in the
many bound volumes of "India Office Tracts," in the Library of the India Office,
Whitehall.
0. M. H. VI. CH. XV.
69
930 India.
(6) GenebaIi Works.
Auber, Peter. Rise and Progress of the British Power in India. 2 vols. London,
1837.
Dictionary of National Biography. Articles on Clive, Warren Hastings, Francis,
Barwellj Impey, and passim. London. 1885-1900.
Elphinstone, M.. Rise of the British Power in the East. Ed. by Sir Edward
Colebrooke. London. 1887.
KayOj J. W. The Administration of the East India Company. London. 1863.
Lecfcy, W. E. H. History of England in the Eighteenth Century. 7 vola
London. 1892.
Lyall, Sir A. C. The Rise and Expansion of the British Dominion in India.
London. 1906.
Macpherson, D. Annals of Commerce. 4 vols. London. 1805.
European Commerce with India. London. 1812.
Mahan, A. T. The influence of Sea^Power upon History, 1660-1783. London.
1889.
Mahon, Lord (Earl of Stanhope)i, The Rise of our Indian Empire. London. 1868.
Maries, J. L. de. Histoire Geuerale de I'lnde, ancienne et moderne. 6 vols. Paris.
1828.
Marshman, J. C. The History of India. 3 vols. London. 1867.
Martineau, Harriet. The History of British Rule in India. London. 1857.
Mill, James. The History of British India. Ed. with notes and continuations by
H. H. Wilson. 10 vols. London. 1868.
Fenhoen, B. de. Histoire de la conquete et la fondation de I'empire Anglais dans
rinde. 6 vols. Paris. 1840-1.
Thornton, E. The History, of the British Empire in India. London. 1868.
Willson, Beckles. Ledger and Sword. 2 vols. London. 1903.
(6) Special Works, hainlt Bioqraphicau
(a), Clive and his Contemporaries.
Arbuthnot, Sir A. J. Lord Clive. London. 1889.
Biddulph, J. Stringer Lawrence. London. 1901.
Broome, A. History of the rise and progress of the Bengal army. Calcutta. 1850.
Dalton, C. Memoir of Captain Dalton, Defender of Trichinopoly. London. 1886.
Gleig, G. R. The Life of Robert, Lord Clive. 3 vols. London. 1836.
Grant, R. A Sl^etch of the history of the East India Company from the first
formation to the passing of the Regulating Act of 1773. London. 1813.
Macaulay, Lord. Critical and Historical Essays. The Essay on Clive. London.
1869.
Malcolm, Sir John. The life of Robert, Lord Clive. 3 vols. London. 1836.
Stewart, Charles. The History of Bengal. London. 1813.
Wilson, Sir Charles. Clive. London. 1890.
(6) Warren Bastings and his Contemporaries.
Beveridge, Henry. The trial of Maharaja Nanda Kumar. Calcutta. 1886.
Bioves, Achille. Les Anglais dans I'lude. Warren Hastings. Paris. 1904.
Busteed, H. E. Echoes from, Old Calcutta. London. 1908.
Gleig, G. R. Memoirs of the life of... Warren Hastings. 3 vols. London. 1841.
Impey, E. B. Memoirs of Sir Elijah Impey. London. 1846.
Bibliography. 931
Kirkpati-ick, W. Select letters of Tippoo Sultan. London. 1811.
Lawson, Sir C. The private life of Warren Hastings. London. 1896.
Lyall> Sir A. C. Warren Hastings. London. 1902.
Macartney, Earl of. Some account of the public life and a selection from the
unpublished writings of the. By J. Barrow. 2 vols. London. 1807.
Macaulay, Lord. Critical and Historical Essays. The Essay on Warren Hastings.
Loudon. 1869.
MaUeson, G. B. Life of Warren Hastings. London. 1894.
ParkeSj J., and Merivale, Herbert. Memoirs of Sir Philip Francis with corre-
spondence and journals. 2 vols. London. 1867.
Stephen, Sir J. F. The story of Nuncomar and the Impeachment of Sir Elijah
Impey. 2 vols. 1885.
Stewart, C. Memoirs of Hyder Ali and Tippoo Sultan. Cambridge. 1809.
Strachey, Sir John. Hastings and the Rohilla war. Oxford. 1892.
Trotter, L. J. Warren Hastings. Oxford. 1894.
B. THE FRENCH IN INDIA.
(1) Unpubushed Material.
There exists a great quantity of unpublished material, which has hitherto
remained comparatively unexplored, in the French Foreign Office, Colonial Office,
Bibliotheque de I'ars^nal, Bibliotheque Nationale and elsewhere. For a more
detailed description see the Bibliographies given by Prosper Cultru in his Bupleix
(Paris, 1004), and Henri Weber in his La Compagnie Fran9aise des Ijides (Paris,
1904).
(2) Contemporary Works, Memoirs Eia
Ananda Ranga PiUai, Private Diary of, 1736-61. Ed. by Sir J. F. Price.
Madras. 1904.
Anandarangappoule, Extraits du Journal de. Ed. by J. Vinson. Paris. 1894.
Bussy, le Sieur de. Memoires, Lettres, etc, Paris. 1764.
Dupleix, J. F. Memoire...contre la compagnie des ludes avec les pieces justifica-
tives. Paris. 1769.
Reponsc.a la lettre du Sieur Godeheu. Paris. 1763.
Godeheu. Lettre a M. Dupleix. Memoire a consulter. Paris. 1760.
Guyon, Abbe. Histoire des Indes Orientales. Paris. 1744.
Harris, J. A history of the French East India Company. Navigantium atque
Itinerantium bibliotheca. Vol. i. 1744.
Histoire du Siege de Pondichery sous le gouvernement de M. Dupleix. Brussels.
1766.
Labourdonnais, Memoire pour le Sieur de, avec les pieces justificatives. Paris. 1751.
B.-F. Mahe de. Memoires historiques recueillis et publics par son petit-fils.
Paris. 1827.
LaUy, Count de [Baron de ToUendal]. Memoirs of. London. 1766.
Lally-ToUendal, Marquis de. Plaidoyer du Comte de Lally-ToUendal, Curateur a la
memoire du feu Comte de Lally, son pere. Rouen. 1780.
Lauraguais, Count de. Me'moire sur la compagnie des Indes, dans lequel on
etablit les droits et les inte'rets des Actionnaires en repouse aux compilations
de M. I'abbe Morellet. Paris. 1770.
CH. XV. 69—2
932 India.
Morelletj Abbe. Memoire sur la situation actuelle de la compagnie des Indes,
Paris. .1769.
Examen de la R^ponse de M. N. au mdmoire de M. I'Abbe Morellet... Paris.
1769.
Necker, J. Memoire en reponse a celui de M. I'Abbe Morellet sur la compagnie
des Indes. Paris. 1769.
Suffren, P. A. de. Journal de bord dans I'Inde 1781-4. Paris. 1888.
Voltaire, F. M. A. de. Fragments sur riude, sur le General LaUi et sur le Comte
de Morangies. 1773.
(3) Later Works and GbneraIi Histories.
Barb^, E. Le nabab Rend Madeo. Histoire diplomatique des projets de' la France
sur le Bengale et le Pendjab. Paris. 1894. '
■Cultru, Prosper. Dupleix, ses plans politiques ; sa disgrace. Paris. 1901.
Fosses, Castonnet des. Dupleix, ses dernieres luttes dans I'Inde. 1889.
Ouet, J. Origines de I'Inde fran(^ai8e. Jan Begum. Paris. 1892.
Hamont, Tibulle. La fin d'un Empire iran9ais aux Indes sous Louis XV. Lally-
ToUendal. Paris. 1887.
Hennequin, T. F. G. Essai historique sur la vie et les campagnes du Bailli de
SufFren. Paris. 1824.
Herpin, E. Mahe de la Bourdonnais et la compagnie des Indes. Saint-Brieuc.
1905.
Hill, S. C. Three FrencTiraen in Bengal, or the commercial ruin of the French
Settlements in 1767. London. 1903.
Lescure, M. Precis historique sur les etablissements franfais de I'Inde. Pondi-
cherry. 1864.
Malleson, G. B. The history of the French in India. London. 1893.
—— Final French struggles in India. London. 1884.
Martin, Henri. Histoire de France. 19 vols. Paris. 1856-60.
Roux, J. S. Le Bailli de Suffren dans I'Inde. Marseilles. 1862.
Saint-Priest, A. G. de. La perte de I'Inde sous Louis XV. Paris. 184S.
Sismondi, J. C. L. de. Histoire des Franf ais depuis I'origine jusqu'en 1789. 31 vols.
Paris. 1821-44.
Weber, Henri. La Compagnie fraufaise des Indes. Paris. 1904,
933
CHAPTER XVI.
ITALY AND THE PAPACY.
I. GENERAL ITALIAN HISTORY.
A. Contemporary Annals, Letters etc.
BrosseSj C. de, Lettres historiques et critiques sur I'ltalie. Paris. 1799.
Dupaty, C. M. G. B. M. Lettres sur I'ltalie. Rome. 1789. English trans-
lation by J. Pavoleri. London. 1789.
Goethsj J. W. von. Tagebiicher und Briefe Goethes aus Italien an Frau von Stein
und Herder. Weimar. 1886.
Montesquieu, C. de S. Voyages de Montesquieu. Paris. 1894.
Muratori, L. A. Auuali d' Italia (to 1749). Milan. 1818-21.
B. Later Works.
(1) Political History.
Botta, C. Storia d' Italia continuata da quella del Guicciardini sino al 1789. Paris.
1832.
Cantu, C. Storia di Cento Anni (1750-1860). Florence. 1851.
Storia degli Italiani. Turin. 1855-6.
Coppi, A. Annali d' Italia (1750-1845). Rome. 1824-61.
Coscij A. Le Preponderanze Straniere. Milan. 1879.
Denina, C. G. M. DeUe Rivoluzioni d' Italia. Milan. 1820.
Ferrari, J. Histoire des Revolutions d'ltalie. Paris. 1858.
Franchetti, A. Storia d' Italia dopo il 1789. Milan. 1880.
Leo, H. Geschichte von Italien. Vol. v. (Gesch. d. eui-op. Staaten.) Hamburg.
1832.
Quinet, Edgar, Les Revolutions d'ltalie. Paris. 1848.
(2) Social, Economic, Constitutional or History.
Bielfeld, J. F. von. Institutions politiques. Vol. iii. Leyden. 1767-72.
Custodi, P. Scrittori classici Italiani di Eoonomia Politica. Milan. 1803-16.
Schlopis, F. Storia della Legislazioue Italiana. Vol. ii. Turin. 1863.
Schwartzkopf, A. von. Beitrage zur Geschichte der uational-okonomischen Studien
in Italien im 17. und 18. Jahrhundert. Strassburg. 1873. [A compendium
of Custodi's work.]
Sorel, A. L'Europe et la Revolution Fran9aise. Paris. 1887.
Vita Italiana, la, nel Setteceuto : Confereuze tenute a Firenze nel 1895. Edd. Fratelli
Treves. Milan. 1895.
934 Italy and the Papacy.
n. THE PAPACY.
A. DOCDMENTS.
Acta hist, eccles. 24 vols. Weimar. 1736-58.
Acta hist, eccles. nova. 12 vols. Weimar. 1768-73.
Acta hist, eccles. nostri temporis. 12 vols. Weimar. 1774-87.
Arrets du 6 aout 1761 at du 6 aout 1762. (60 pp. of Recueil Isambert.)
Bull, romani continuatio. Rome. 1835^ etc.
Chauveliiij Abbe. Discours sur les constitutions des Jesuites. Paris. 1761.
La Chalotais. Compte rendu des constitutions des Jesuites. Rennes. 1762.
Roussel de la Tour, Abbe Goujet, Dom Clemencet, etc. Extraits des assertions
dangei'euses et pernicieuses que les Jesuites ont enseignees. Paris. 1762.
B. CONTEUPOBARY PIlSTOBIES, BlOGBAPHIES, MEMOffiS.
Bonamicus, P. De Claris Foutiiicarum Epistolarum Scriptoribus ad Clementem XIV.
Rome. 1770.
Borgia, A. Benedicti XIII Vita. Rome. 1762.
Caraccioli, L. A. de. La Vie du Pape Benoit XIV, Prosper Lambertini. Paris.
1783.
La Vie du Pape Clement XIV. Paris. 1776.
Clemente XIV. Lettere e altre Opere. Milan. 1841.
Eiuem, J. A. C. von. Versuch einer voUstandigen Kirchengeschichte des Acht-
zehnten Jahrhunderts. Leipzig. 1776-8.
Fabroni, A. De Vita et Rebus Gestis dementis XII Commentarius. Rome. 1760.
Vita di Benedetto XIV. Rome. 1787.
Gallethius, F. A. Memorie per servire alia Storia della Vita del Cardinale Passionei.
Rome. 1762.
Kraus, F. X. Lettere di Benedetto XIV col Diario del Conclave di 1740. 2nd
edition. Freiburg i. B. 1888.
Lafiteau, F. F. Histoire de la Constitution Unigenitus. Avignon. 1766.
Orsi, G. A. Storia degli ultimi quattro Secoli della Chiesa. Rome. 1788-97.
Saint^Simon, Rouvroy, L. de. Due de. M^moires. Vols, xvi, xvii, xix. Paris. 1829.
Schubart, C. F. Leben des Fapstes Clemens XIV. Gottingen. 1774.
Theiner, A. dementis XIV Epistolae et Brevia Selectiora. Paris. 1852.
Zanelli, A. II Conclave per 1' Elezione di Clemente XII. Archivio della R. Societa
Romaua di Storia Fatria. Vol. xiii.
C. Lateb Works.
(!) Political History (general).
Brosch, M. Gescbichte des Kirchenstaates. (Gesch. d. europ. Staaten.) 2 vols.
Gotha. 1880-2.
Capefigue, B. H. R. L'!^glise pendant les quatre derniers Siecles. Paris. 1854-8.
Crouzay-Cretet, P. de. L'Eglise et I'jfitat, ou les deux Puissances au xviu» Siecle
(1715-89). Paris. 1894.
Funk, F. X. Lehrbuch der Kirchengeschichte. Paderborn. 1898.
Hageubach, K. R. Kirchengeschichte des 18. und 19. Jahrhunderts. Vol. l.
Leipzig. 1848-9.
Henrion, Baron M. A. R. Histoire ge'ndrale de I'Eglise pendant les xvin° et
XIX' siecles. Vol. i. Paris. 1840.
Lanfrey, P. Histoire politique des Papes. Paris. 1860.
Mamiani, T. Del Papato nei tre ultimi Secoli. Milan. 1886,
Bibliography. 935
Picot, M. Memoires pour servir a I'histoire eccl^siastique pendant le xviii*
siecle. Paris. 1863.
fianke, L. von. Gesch. d. Rom. Papste. Vol. xxxviii of Sammtl. Werke.
Leipzig. 1879, etc. History of the Popes. Engl. Tr. London. 1847.
Rattinger, D. Der Papst und die Kirchenstadt. Freiburg i. B. 1866.
(2) BioGRAPBiEE, Monographs etc.
Ameth, Ritter A. von. Geschichte Maria Theresias. Vienna. 1863-77.
Clement XI. Archivio deUa R. Societa Romana di Storia Patria. Vols, xxi, xxii,
XXIII.
Coppi, A. Discorso sulle Finanze dello Stato Pontificio dal Secolo 16° al Principio
del 19°. Rome. 1855.
Forster, J. Eine Papstwahl vor hundert Jahren. Eine Erinnerung aus dem
Jalire 1769. Berlin. 1869.
Getting, C. F. Ein verriickter Papst.'' Gkinganelli. Berlin. 1886.
Masson, F. Le Cardinal de Beruis depuis son Ministere. Paris. 1884.
Ravignan, P. de. Clement XIII et Clement XIV. Paris. 1854.
Beumont, A. von. Gangauelli, Papst Clemens XIV, seine Briefe und seine Zeit.
Berlin. 1847.
Sforza, G. Episodi della Stoi-ia di Roma nel Secolo xvni. Archivio Storico
lUliano. Series rv. Vols, xix, xx.
Silvagni, D. La Corte e la Societa Romana nei Secoli xviii e xix. Vol. i.
Florence. 1882.
Theiner, A. Histoire du Pontificat de Clement XIV. Paris. 1852.
Ugolini, F. Review of Theiner's History of Clement XIV. Archivio Storico
Italiano. Series li, Vol. iv.
Uschner, C. Clemens XIV. Ein Lebens- und Karakterbild. Berlin. 1866.
D. The? Suppression of the Jesuits.
Bertolini^ F. Clemente XIV e la Soppressione dei Gesuiti. Nuova Antologia.
Nov. 1886.
Chevalier, M. Pombal. Revue des Deux Mondes. Paris. Sept. 1870.
Cretineau-Joly, J. Clement XIV et les Jesuites. Paris. 1847.
Dubois, I'Abbe J. A. Letters on the State of Christianity in India (for the Jesuit
Missions). London. 1823.
Du Hamel du Breuil. Un Ministre Philosophe : Pombal. Revue Historique.
Paris. Sept. 1895. Jan. 1896.
Dnhr, Father, S. J. Pombal, sein Charakter und seine Politik. (Stimmen aus
Maria-Laach.) Freiburg i. B. 1891.
Gomes, F. L. Le Marquis de Pombal. Paris. 1869.
Guignard, A, Comte de Saint-Priest. Histoire de la Chute des Je'suites au xviii»
Siecle. Paris. 1844.
Murr, G. von. Geschichte der Jesuiten in Portugal unter Pombal. Niirnberg.
1787.
Olfers, J. M. von. L' Attentat du 3 Sept., 1758. Recherches historiques. Berlin.
1839.
Rousseau, F. Charles III de Bourbon. Paris. 1907.
Sforza, G. II Conclave di Papa Ganganelli e la Soppressione dei Gesuiti. Archivio
Storico Italiano. Series v. Vol. xx.
Theiner, A. Processo a carico del P. F. Pisani e dei suoi Confratelli della
Compagnia di Gesfii, compilato per Ordine di S.S. Clemente XIV, da servire di
Continuazione alia Storia del suo Pontificato.... Florence. 1854.
936 Italy and the Papacy.
III. NAPLES AND SICILY.
A. Documents.
Many unpublished documents are still to be found at Naples, especially in the
Biblioteca Nazionale and in the Library of the Societa Napolitana di Storia Patria,
in the Archivio di Stato di Napoli, the Monicipio di Napoli and the Casa de' Duchl
di Maddaloni.
B. Contemporary Histories, Travels, Letters.
Bazzoni, A. Carteg'gio dell' Abate F. Galiani col Marchese Tanucci. Series ui.
Vols. IX, etc. : and Series iv. Vols. i-iv.
Becatini, F, Storia del Regno di Carlo III di Borbone. Venice. 1790.
Bonamicus, P. J. De Rebus ad Velitras gestis Commentarius. Leyden. 1749.
Italian translation by D. N. Zehender. Naples. 1802.
Carignani, G. Carteggio diplomatico tra il Marchese B. Tanucci e il Principe
Albertini. Archivio Storico per le Provincie Napolitane. Vols, in, iv.
Duclos, C. Voyage en Italie (1769). Paris. 1791.
Galiani, C. Diario della guerra di Velletri. Archivio Storico per le Provincie
Napolitane. Vol. xxx.
Lande, M. de la. Voyage en Italie (1765). Geneva. 1790.
Marzo, G. di. Diario della Citta di Palermo dal Secolo xvi al xix. Vol. ix.
Palermo. 1871.
Nicolini, F. Lettere inedite di B. Tanucci al F. Galiani. Archivio Storico per le
Provincie Napolitane. Vols, xviii, xxx and xxxi.
Ouofri, P. Elogio estemporaneo per la gloriosa Memoria di Carlo III, Naples,
1803.
Orloff, Count Gregoire. Mdmoires historiques, politiques et lltteraires sur le
Royaume de Naples. Paris. 1819-21.
Patrizi, S. Vita di Niccolo Fragianni. Translated by F. Palermo. Archivio Storico
Italiano. Series ii. Vol. i.
Pecchia, C. Storia civile e politica del Regno di Napoli. Naples, 1783. [A
continuation of Giannone's history.]
Reinach, J. Recueil des Instructions donnees aux Ambassadeurs de France;
Naples and Parma. Paris. 1893.
Swinburne, H. Travels in the Two Sicilies. London. 1873.
C. Later Works.
(1) General Political History.
Blasi, G. E. di. Storia civile del Regno di Sicilia. Palermo. 1811-21.
Cala Ulloa, P. Di Bernardo Tanucci e del suoi Tempi. Naples. 1875,
Intorno alia Storia del Reame di Napoli di Fietro CoUetta, annotamenti....
Naples. 1877.
See also Review of the above in Archivio Storico per le Provincie Napolitane.
Vol. in.
Carignani, G. II Partite Austriaco nel Regno di Napoli al 1744. Archivio Storico
per le Provincie Napolitane. Vol. vi.
II Tempo di Carlo III, Re del Regno delle due Sicilie. Naples. 1865.
Collado, M. Danvila y, Reinado de Carlos HI. Madrid. 1892.
Colletta, P. Storia del Reame di Napoli del 1734 al 1825, New edition, with
notes, etc., by C. Manfroni. Milan. 1906.
Dumas, A, I Borboni di Napoli, Naples. 1864-7.
Bibliography. 937
Gregorio, Rosario di. Considerazioni sulla Stoi-ia della Sicilia dai Normanni a noi.
Palermo. 1806-10.
La Lumia^ I. Storie Siciliane. Vol. iv, Palermo. 1881^ etc.
Lanza, P. Considerazioni sulla Storia di Sicilia dal 1632 al 1789, quale Commento
al Botta. Palermo. 1836.
Pozzo, L. del. Cronica civile e militare delle due Sicilie sotto la Diuastia Borbonioa
dal 1734 in poi. Naples. 1867.
Schipa, M. 11 Regno di Napoli al Tempo di Carlo di Borbone. Naples. 1904.
(2) Constitutional, Legal, Eoclbsiastioal etc. and Monographs.
Ayala, M. de. Memorie Storico-militari dal 1734 al 1815. Naples. 1835.
Bianchini, L. Storia delle Finanze del Regno di Napoli. Palermo. 1839.
Della Storia economico-civile della Sicilia. Palermo. 1841.
Cagnazzi, L. di S. Saggio sulla Popolazione del Regno di Puglia. Naples.
1820-39,
Cesarini, Sforza. Le Guerre di Velletri. Rome. 1891.
Fornari, T. Delle Teorie economiche delle Provincie Napolitane dal 1736 al 1830.
Milan. 1888.
Guerrieri, G. La Terra d' Otranto nel 1734. Trani. 1901.
Lomonasco, G. Del Foro Napolitano. Naples. 1884.
Maresca, B. La Marina Napolitana nel Secolo xviii. Naples. 1902.
Palmieri, N. Saggio storico e politico suUa Costituzioue del Regno di Sicilia fino al
1816. Lausanne. 1847.
Pascal, C. Vita ed Opere dell' Abate Galiani. Naples. 1886.
Pasquali, G. Le due Battaglie di Velletri. Velletri. 1891.
Racioppi, G. Antonio Genovesi. Naples. 1871.
Reinach, J. La Campagna del anno 1742. Rivista Militare Italiana. 1879.
Sariis, A. de. Codice delle Leggi del Regno di Napoli. Naples. 1792-7.
Scaduto, F. Stato e Chiesa nolle due Sicilie. Palermo. 1887.
Schipa, M. II Muratori e la Cultura Napolitana del suo Tempo. Naples. 1902.
IV. TUSCANY.
A. Documents.
There are still a certain number of unpublished documents in the Biblioteca
Nazionale; but very many are printed in the works mentioned below, especially
in the Atti dell' Assemblea degli Archivescovi e Vescovi, etc., in the Memorie di
Scipione de' Ricci and in Cantini's Legislazione Toscana. Other valuable collections
are Statuta Populi et Communis Florentiae. Freiburg i. B. 1815 ; and Bandi e
Ordini da osservarsi nel Granducato di Toscana... pubblicati dal di xii Luglio 1787...
raccolti.. , coir ordinesuccessivQ dei tempi.... Florence. 1747-1848.
Atti deir Assemblea degli Archivescovi e Vescovi della Toscana tenuta in Firenze
neir Anno 1787. Florence. 1787-8.
Atti 8 Decreti del Concilio Dlocesano di Pistoja dell' Anno mdcclxxxvi. Pistoia.
1788. Republished by C. M. F. in II Vescovo Scipione do' Ricci e le Riforme
Religiosi in Toscana sotto il Regno di Leopoldo I. Florence. 1865, which
also contains De Potter's Life of Ricci (see C (2) below).
Cantini, L. Legislazione Toscana raocolta e illustrata. Florence. 1800-8.
Gianni F. M. La Costituzioue Toscana immaginata dal Gran Duca Pietro Leopoldo,
Italy, 1847, [Written in 1805 by Leopold's Minister Gianni.]
CH. XVI.
938 Italy and the Papacy.
Governo della Toscana sotto il Regno di S. M. il Re Leopoldo II. Florence. 1790.
[Published by Cambiagi, the Grand Duke's printer, by Leopold's orders.]
B. Contemporary Memoirs, Biographies etc.
Arneth, Ritter A. von. Marie Antoinette, Joseph II und Leopold II. Ihr Brief-
wechsel. Leipzig. 1866.
Joseph II und Leopold von Toscana. Ihr Briefwechsel (1781-90). Vienna.
1872.
Bourgoing, Baron J. F. de. Memoires historiques et philosophiques sur Pius VI et
son Pqntificat. Paris. 1799.
Huber, A. Die Politik Kaiser Josephs II, beurtheilt von seinem Bruder Leopold
von Toscana. Innsbruck. 1877.
Rastrelli, M. Memorie di M. R. per servire alia Vita di Leopoldo II. "Italy."
1792. [Contains Leopold's Diary.]
Remigio Pupares (L. Beccatini). Vita pubblica e privata di Pietro Leopoldo d' Austria.
Siena. 1797.
Ricci, S. de'. Memorie di Scipione de' Ricci, Vescovo di Prato e Pistoja, scritti da
lui medesimo e pubblicati con documenti da A. Gelli. Florence. 1865.
Tanzini, R. Istoria dell' Assemblea degli Archivescovi e Vescovi della Toscana
tenuta in Firenze 1' Anno mdcolxxxvii. Florence. 1788.
Wolf, A. Marie Cristine und Leopold IL Ihr Briefwechsel (1781-92). Vienna.
1867.
C. Later Works.
(1) Political Histories.
Baldasseroni, 6. Leopoldo II Granduca di Toscana e i suoi Tempi. Florence. 1871.
Delecluse, E. J. Florence et ses Vicissitudes. Paris. 1837.
Hirschj F. Leopold II als Grossherzog von Toskana. Munich. 1878.
Reumont, A. von. Geschichte Toskanas. (Gesch. d. europ. Staaten.) Vol. ii.
Gotha. 1876.
Zobi, A. Storia civile della Toscana dal 1737 al 1848. Florence. 1860.
X.... Review of the above. Archivio Storico Italiano. Series ii. Vol. i.
(2) Ecclesiastical History.
Apologia delle Leggi di Giurisdizioue, Amministrazione e Polizia Ecclesiastica,
pubblicate in Toscana sotto il Regno di Leopoldo I. Florence. 1858.
Potter, L. J. A. de. Vie de Scipion de' Ricci. Paris. 1826. (See Section A
above.)
Scaduto, F. State e Chiesa sotto Leopoldo I. Florence. 1885.
Venturi, G. A. II Vescovo de' Ricci e la Corte Romana fino al Sinodo di Pistoja.
Florence. 1885.
Review of Scaduto's "Stato e Chiesa sotto Leopoldo I." Archivio Storico
Italiano. Series iv, Vol. xvi.
Le Controversie del Granduca Leopoldo I di Toscana e del Vescovo Scipione
de' Ricci con la Corte Romana. Archivio Storico Italiano. Series v. Vol, viii.
(3) Constitutional etc. Memoirs.
Capponi, G. Scritti editi e inediti. [Pp. 347, etc.] Florence. 1877.
Doran, J. Mann and Manners at the Court of Florence (1740-86). Founded on
the Letters of Horace Mann to Horace Walpole. London. 1876.
Guasti, C. Giuseppe Silvestri, etc. Vol. i. Prato. 1874.
Bibliography. 939
Malaspina, A. G., last Marquis of Mulazzo. II Granduca di Toscana Pietro
Leopoldo a Pontremoli nel 1786. Edited by C. Cumati. Pontremoli. 1894.
Reumont, A. von. Giuseppe II, Pietro Leopoldo e la Toscana. Ai-chivio StoHco
Italiano. Series in, Vol. xxiv.
Saggi di Storia e Letteratura. Florence. 1880.
Bigobon, P. La Contabilita di Stato nella Repubblica di Firenze e nel Granducato
di Toscana, Girgenti. 1802.
Rocchi, G. Pompeo Neri. Archivio Storico Italiano. Ser. iii, Vol. xxiv.
Tabarrinij M. Studii di Critica Storica. Florence. 1876.
Zimmermann, J. Das Verfassungsprojekt des Grossherzogs Peter Leopold von
Toskana. Heidelberg. 1901.
Zobi, A. Memorie economico-politiche, o sia dei Danni arrecati dall' Austria alia
Toscana dal 1737 al 1859. Florence. 1860.
Zuccagni-Orlandini, A. Ricercbe statistiche del Granducato di Toscana. Florence.
1848-63.
V. VENICE.
A. Contemporary Histories and Memoirs.
Bazzoni, A. Le Annotazioni degli Inquisitori di Stato di Venezia. ArcUvio Storico
Italiano. Ser. iii. Vols, xi and xn.
Diedo, G. Storia della Repubblica di Venezia dalla fondazione sin' al anno 1747.
Venice. 1751.
Goldoni, C. Memoires pour servir a I'Histoire de sa Vie et a ceUe de son Theatre.
Paris. 1822.
Laugier, Abbe M. A. Histoire de la Rdpublique de Venise. Paris. 1768.
Marin, C. A. Storia civile e politica del Commercio de' Veneziani. Venice. 1798.
Sagredo, A. Leggi Ecclesiastiche dei Veneziani spettanti aUa pubblica Ecouomia.
Archivio Storico Italiano. Series m, Vol. vi.
B. Later Works.
(1) Political Histories.
Bonnal,E. Chute d'une R^publique ; Venise. Paris. 1885.
Dandolo, G, La Caduta della Repubblica di Venezia e i suoi ultimi anni. Venice.
1866-9.
Daru, P. A. N. B. Histoire de la Republique de Venise. Paris. 1819.
MutineUi, T. Memorie storiche degli ultimi cinquant' anni della Repubblica
Veneta. Venice. 1864.
Romanin, S. Storia documentata di Venezia. Venice. 1863-61.
X.... Review pf the histories of Venice by Mutinelli and Dandolo. Archivio
Storico Italiano, Series ii. Vol. ui.
(2) Monographs.
Cecchetti B. Una delle Cause della Caduta deUa Repubblica Veneta, Venice.
1887.'
Molmenti, P. G. La Storia di Venezia nella vita privata. Turin. 1880.
La Dogaressa di Venezia. Turin. 1884.
Venezia. Nuovi Studi di Storia e d' Arte. Florence. 1897.
Morpurgo, E. Marco Foscarini e Venezia nel Secolo xvui. Florence. 1880.
OH. XVI.
940 Italy and the Papacy.
VI. GENOA.
A. Contemporary Histories and Monographs.
Brequigny, L. G. Oudard-Feudrix de. Histoire des Revolutions de Genes depuis
son Etablissement jusqu'a la Conclusion de la Paix de 1748. Paris. 1750.
Delia Storia di Geneva dal Trattato di Worms fino alia Pace di Aquisgrana.
Leyden. 17S0.
Lettera scritta ad un Amico in Roma circa lo Scacciamento de' Tedesehi dalla
Citta di Genova (1746). Edited by C. M, Archivio Storico Italiano. Series i,
Appendix, Vol. v.
Mecatti, G. M. Guei-ra di Genova. Naples. 1749.
B. Later Works,
Histories.
CanalOj M. G. Storia civile, commerciale e letteraria dei Genovesi dalle Oripne
all' Anno 1797. Genoa. 1846.
Varese, C. Storia della Repubblica di Genova dalla sua Origine siao al 1814.
Genoa. 1838.
Vincens, £. Histoire de la R^publique de Genes. Paris. 1842.
C. Corsica.
(1) Contemporary Works.
CamWagl, Abate G. Istoria del Regno di Corsica. Livomo. 1770.
Paoli, General. — Lettere di Pasquale de' PaolL Edited by N. Tommaseo. ArcUvio
Storico Italiano. Series i. Vol. xi.
Lettere inedite di Pasquale de' Paoli. Edited by G. Livi. Archivio Storico
Italiano. Series v. Vols, v and vi.
(2) Later Works.
Buttafuoco, A. S. L. F. de. Fragments pour servir k I'Histoire de Corse de 1764 a
1769. Bastia. 1859.
Gregorovius, F. Wanderings in Corsica, its History and its Heroes. Translated
by A. Muir. Edinburgh. 1856.
Vamhagen von Ense, K. A. II Re Teodoro di Corsica. (Biographische Denkmale.)
Berlin. 1824-30.
Viale, S. Delle Mutazioni dei Regimeuti Politic! in Corsica. Archivio Storico
Italiano. Series n. Vol. xiv. Ft. 1.
941
CHAPTER XVII.
SWITZERLAND FROM THE TREATY OF AARAU TO THE
REVOLUTION.
I. GENERAL.
Eidgenossische Abscliede, especially Vols, vi^ 2 ; vn, 1 and 2 ; viir.
Escher, H. Article Eidgenossenschaft in Ersch and Gruber's Encyklopadie.
Sec. I, Part xxxii. Leipzig. 1839.
Geschichte der Schweiz. Eidgenossenschaft. Vol. m. Zurich. 1867.
Meyer von Knonau, L. Haudbuch der Geschichte der Schweiz. Eidgenossenschaft.
Zurich. 1826-9. 2nd edn. 1843.
Miiller, Johannes von. Geschichte Schweizerischer Eidgenossenschaft. Vols, z,
zi and XII. Edited by L. Vulliemin and C. Monnard. Zurich. 1845-8.
II. THE ALLIANCE WITH FRANCE.
Akten (Manualien) der Geheimen Rate der Stadte und anderer Orte. Corre-
spondance des ambassadeurs de France. Cantonal Archives of State,
fialthasar, F. U. Anmerkungen iiber den Bund von 1715. (Manuscript.)
Bonnac, J. L. M^moire sur le renouveUement de I'alliance. 1733. Archives des
Affaires ^trangeres. Paris.
Du Luc, F. C. Denkschrift iiber die Schweiz, 1715. German Transl. in Schweiz.
Museum. Aarau. 1816. (Part iv, pp. 610 sqq.)
Instructions laissees par Bonnac a Mariane. 1736. Archives, etc.
Inventaire sommaire des Archives du Departement des Affaires Etrangeres. Paris.
1892. [For the despatches and correspondences of the French ambassadors in
Switzerland.]
Memoire pour servir d'instruction au sieur Chevalier de Beauteville. 1763.
Archives, etc.
Memoire pour servir d'instruction au sieur de Courteille. 1738. Archives, etc.
Meyer von Knonau, G. Die Besch worung des franzosischen Bundnisses zu Solothurn,
1777. Neujahrsblatt der Stadtbibliothek Zurich. Zurich. 1870.
Rott, E. Inventaire sommaire des documents relatifs a I'histoire de Suisse, conserves
dans les archives et bibliotheques de Paris. Parts i-v. Public par ordre du
conseil federal Suisse. Bern. 1882-94.
Vogel, F. A. Privileges dee Suisses. Paris. 1731.
Zellweger, J. K. Geschichte der diplomatischen Verhaltnisse der Schweiz mit
Frankreich von 1698-1784. St Gallen and Bern. 1848-9.
III. FOREIGN SERVICE AND NEUTRALITY.
Balthasar, F. U. Transgressionen der Franzosen, etc. (Manuscript.)
Chavigny, T. C. Memoire sur... les troupes suisses, etc. Solothurn. 1756.
942 Switzerland.
JFie£Fee, E. Histoire des troupes etrangeres au service de France. 2 parts.
Paris. 1854. German translation. Munich. 1856-60.
Girardj F. Histoire abre'gde des officiers suisses qui se sent distingues aux services
etrangers. Fribourg. 1781.
Maag, A. Geschichte der Schweizertruppen im Kriege Napoleons, etc. Biel.
1892, etc.
May, de Romainmotier. Histoire militaire de la Suisse, etc. Lausanne. 1788.
Morell, C. Die Schweizerregimenter in Frankreich 1789-92. St Gallen. 1858.
Miilinen, W. F. von. Geschichte der Schweizersdidner, etc. Bern. 1887.
Rodt, V. Geschichte des berner Kriegswesens. Bern. 1831-4.
Rudolf, J. M. Geschichte der Feldziige und des Kriegsdienstes der Schweizer im
Ausland. Baden. 1847.
Schwarz, F. Die Schweizerregimenter im franzosischen Diensten, etc. Basel. 1882.
Schweizer, P. Geschichte der sohweiz. Neutralitat. Frauenfeld. 1893-6.
Soldats Suisses au service etranger. Collective work by Rilliet, Cramer, Mayer
and others. Geneva. 1907, etc.
Zurlauben, F. von. Histoire militaire des Suisses au service de la France. Paris.
1761.
IV. CLASS CONFLICTS AND THE AUFKLABUNG.
Schollenberger, J. Geschichte der schweiz, Politik. Frauenfeld. 1906. (Vol. i,
pp. 434-6.)
943
CHAPTER XVIIL
JOSEPH II.
I. MANUSCRIPTS.
The most important unpublished material for the history of the reign of
Joseph II is to be found in the following Archives, under the heads specified in
each case :
Vienna : Kaiserlich Konigliches Archiv : (1) Diplomatische Correspondeuz (Diplo-
matic Correspondence) ; (2) Vortrage der Staats- und Reichskanzlei an den
Kaiser (Oral Reports to the Emperor of the State and Imperial Chanceries) ;
(3) Weisungen (Instructions) ; (4) Berichte (Reports) ; (6) Staatsrat (Council of
State) ; (6) Kriegsacten ; (7) Friedensacteu (War and Peace documents) ;
(8) Hungarica ; (9) Belgica.
Paris : Archives du Ministere des affaires ^trangeres a Paris : Correspondance
(1) de Vienne ; (2) de Bruxelles ; (3) de Hollande.
Brussels : Archives generales du Royaume : (1) Chancellerie autrichienne des
Pas-Bas ; (2) Conseil prive ; (3) Conseil des Finances ; (4) Secretairerie d'!l^tat
et de Guerre ; (5) Conseil de Brabant ; (6) Correspondance des Gouvei-neurs
generaux avec la Cour de Vienne ; (7) Conseil du Gouvernement general ;
(8) Archives des !Etats Belgiques Unis.
The Hague : Archives du Royaume : (1) Archives of the States General of the
United Provinces ; (2) Registers van de Acten ; (3) Commissie Boeken (Com-
mittee Books) ; (4) Registers van Instruction ; (S) Liassen (Files) : Ordinary
Letters, Brussels ; Ordinary Letters, Vienna ; Secret Letters,. Brussels ; Secret
Letters, Vienna ; (6) Registers der uitgaende missiven van de Hooghmogende
Heeren Staten Generael der Vereeuigde Nederlanden (Despatches from the
States General) ; (7) Registers of ordinary Resolutions ; Registers of secret
Resolutions ; (8) Vredehandelingen (Peace Negotiations) : Utrecht, 1713 ;
Barrier, 1713 and 171S J Fontainebleau, 1786.
II. CONTEMPORARY AUTHORITIES.
Ameth, Ritter A. von. Maria Theresia und Josei II. Ihre Correspondenz. 3 vols.
Vienna. 1867.
Marie Antoinette, Josef II und Leopold II. Ihr Briefwechsel. Vienna.
1866.
Joseph II und Leopold von Toscana. Ihr Briefwechsel von 1781-90. 2 vols.
Vienna. 1872.
Joseph II und Katharina von Russland. Ihr Briefwechsel. Vienna. 1869.
CH. XVIII.
944 Joseph II.
Ameth, Ritter A. von^ and Flammermont, J. Correspondance secrete du comte
de Mercy Argenteau avec I'Empereur Joseph II et le prince de Kaunitz.
2 vols. Paris. 1890-1.
Bacourt, A. de. Correspondance entre le comte de Mirabeau et le comte de La
Marck. Brussels. 1871.
Beer, A. Josef II, Leopold II und Kaunitz. Ihr Briefwechsel, Vienna. 1873.
Briinner, S. Correspondances intimes de I'Emperenr Joseph II avec son ami le
comte de Cobenzl et son premier ministre le prince de Kaunitz. Mayence. 1871.
Calvi, F. Lettere dell' Imperatore dei Romani eletto Giuseppe di Absburgo-Loreno,
al S. A. di Belgiojoso-Este. Milan. 1878.
Feller, F. X. de. Recueil des representations, protestations et reclamations de tous
les ordres de citoyens dans les Fays-Bas catholiques au sujet des infractions
faites a la constitution, aux privileges, coutumes et usages de la nation et des
provinces respectives. 17 vols. Brussels. 1787-90.
Gachard, L. Inventaire des archives des Chambres des comptes, precede d'une notice
historique sur ces anciennes institutions. 3 vols. Brussels. 1837.
Documents politiques et diplomatiques sur la Revolution beige de 1790.
Brussels. 1834.
Lettre de Joseph II sur les troubles des Fays-Bas. Bulletin de la Commission
royale d'histoire, 3° serie, xiv. Brussels.
Lettres de I'archiduchesse Marie-Christine et du due Albert de Saxe-Teschen
a Joseph II, sur leur arrivee aux Pays-Bas. Analectes historiques, i-iv. Brussels.
Lettres ecrites par les souverains des Pays-Bas aux Etats de ces provinces
depuis Philippe II jnsqu'a Francois II. Bulletin de la Commission royale
d'histoire, 2" serie, ii. Brussels.
Rapport adresse au chancelier de cour et d'J^tat, prince de Kaunitz, par le
baron de Martini sur les ev^nements qui empecherent la mise en activite des
nouveaux tribunaux aux Pays-Bas en 1782. Bulletin de la Commission royale
d'histoire, 2° serie, viii. Brussels.
Gachard, Piot-Delecourt. Recueil des anciennes lois et ordonnances de la Belgique,
Pays-Bas autrichiens. 11 vols.' Brussels. 1860, 1906.
Galesloot, L. Chronique des evenements les plus remarquables arrivfe 4 Bruxelles
de 1780 a 1827. 2 vols. Collection de Memoires relatifs a I'histoire de
Belgique. Brussels. 1870.
G&ard, P. Ferdinand Rapedius de Berg. Memoires et documents pour servir a
I'histoire de la Revolution braban9onne. 2 vols. Brussels. 1842-3.
Historisch'politische Nachrichten von den Oesterreichischen Niederlanden, auf
Befehl seiner Majestat des Kaisers herausgegeben. Gera. 1789.
Jaubert, A. Memoires pour servir a la justification de feu S.E. le General d' Alton
et i I'histoire secrete de la Revolution braban9onne. Brussels. 1790.
Liste chronologique des edits et ordonnances des Pays-Bas autrichiens de 1716 a
1794. 3 vols. Brussels. 1858.
Murray, Comte de. Essai sur I'administration de S.E.*le comte de Murray, com-
mandant general dans les Pays-Bas autrichiens en 1787. Brussels. 1791.
Mdmoire pour servir de rdponse aux faux allegues qui se trouvent ^nonces a
son ^gard dans un imprime qui a pour titre: Notes que M. le comte de
Trauttmansdorfi' a remises au cabinet de Vienne pour sa justification. Brussels.
1791.
Noot, H. van der. Memoire sur les droits du peuple brabanfon et les atteintes y
portees au nom de Sa Majeste I'Empereur et Roi, depuis quelques annees,
prdsente h. I'Assemble'e gene'rale des £tats de ladite province, le 23 avrU 1787.
Brussels. 1787.
Relation et protocole de Messieurs les D^pat^s des £tats de la province de Flandre
a Vienne. Messag-er des Sciences historiques de Belgique. Brussels, 1843.
Bibliography. 945
Rendorp, A. Memoires. 2 vols. Amsterdam. 1792.
Schlitter, H. Briefe und Denksohriften zur Vorgeschichte der Belgischen Revolu-
tion. Vienna. 1900.
Kaunitz, Philipp Cobenzl und Spielmann. Ihr Briefwechsel. Vienna. 1899.
Geheime Correspondenz Josephs II mit seinem Minister in den Oesterreich-
ischen Niederlandeu Ferdinand Grafen TrauttmansdoriF. 1787-9. Vienna.
1902.
Sorelj A. Recueil des instructions aux ambassadeurs et ministres de France depuis
les traites de Westphalie jusqu'a la Revolution franyaise. Autriche. Paris.
1884.
Spiegel, L. P. J. van de. R^sumd des negociations qui accompi^nerent la revolution
des Pays-Bas autrichiens. Amsterdam. 1841.
TrauttmansdorfF, Prince F. von. Fragmens pour servir a I'histoire des evdnements
qui se sont passes aux Pays-Bas depuis la fin de 1787 jusqu'a 1789. Amsterdam.
1792.
Vonck. Abrege historique sur I'etat du Brabant. Lille. 1791.
Wolf, A. Leopold II und Marie Christine. Ihr Briefteechsel (1781-92). Vienna.
1867.
IIL SECONDARY WORKS.
A. General.
Beer, A. Die orientalische Politik Oesterreichs seit 1774. Prag. 1883.
Beidtel, J. Geschichte der Oesterreichischen Staatsverwaltung, 1740-8. Hrsgbn.
von A. Huber. 2 vols. Innsbruck. 1896-7.
Borchgrave, Baron E. de. Histoire des rapports de droit public qui existerent entre
les provinces beiges et I'empire d'Allemagne depuis le demembrement de la
monarchie carolingienne jusqu'a I'incorporation de la Belgique a la Republique
£ran9aise. Memoires courormes de I'Academie royale de Belgique. CoU. in
4to. Vol. XXXVI. Brussels.
Borgnet, A. Histoire des Beiges a la fin du dix-huitieme siecle. 2 vols. Brussels.
1861-2.
Daudet, E. Histoire de Temigration. 3 vols. Paris. 1889-96.
Forster, G. Ansichten vom Niederrhein. Leipzig. 1868.
Gachard, L. J. Histoire de la Belgique au commencement du xviii° siecle.
Brussels. 1879.
Gerlache, Baron de. Histoire du royaume des Pays-Bas. 3 vols. Brussels. 1842.
Hubert, E. fitude sur la condition des protestants en Belgique depuis Charles-
quint jusqu'a Joseph II. Brussels. 1882.
Janssens, J. H. Histoire dea Pays-Bas depuis les temps anciens jusqu'a la creation
du royaume des Pays-Bas en 1816. 3 vols. Brussels. 1840.
Liischin von Bbengreuth, A. Oesterreichische Reichsgeschichte. Geschichte der
StaatsbUdung, der Rechtsquellen, und des Rechts. Bamberg. 1896.
Marczali, H. Hungary in the time of Joseph II. 3 vols. Budapest. 1885-8.
English Transl. by A. B. YoUand. {Preparing for publication.)
Neny, Comte de. Memoires historiques et politiques sur les Pays-Bas autrichiens
et sur la constitution tant interne qu'externe des provinces qui la composent.
2 vols. Brussels. 1784.
PouUet, E. Les constitutions nationales beiges de I'ancien regime a I'epoque de
I'invasion fran9aise de 1794. Memoires couronnes de I'academie royale de
Belgique. Coll. in 8vo. Vol. xxvi. Brussels.
Praet, J. van. Les Pays-Bas autrichiens. Leur revolution au point de vue
retrospectif et europeen. Vol. m of Essais sur I'histoire des trois derniers
siecles. Brussels. 1884.
C. M. H. VI. CH. xviii. GO
946 Joseph II.
Rankej L. von. Die deutschen Machte und der Fiirstenbund. Deutsche Geschichte
von 1780-90. 2 vols. Leipzig. 1871-2. Sammtliche Werke. Vols, xxxi-ii.
Ruckelingenj L. Mothot van. Geschiedeuis der Oostenrijksche Nederlauden.
6 vols. Antwerp. 1876-80.
Schlitter, H. Die Regierung- Josefs II in den Oesterreichischen Niederlanden.
Vol. I. Vienna. 1900. [Vol. ii not yet published.]
Seidlerj G. Studien zur Geschichte und Dogmatik des Oesterreichischen Staats-
rechtes. Vienna. 1894.
Shaw, J. Sketches of the History of the Austrian Netherlands. London. 1786.
Sorel, A. La question d'Orient au xvm° siecle. Paris. 1880.
Wolf, A. Oesterreich unter Maria Theresia, Josef II und Leopold II. Berlin.
1882.
B. Monographs, Bioqbafhies etc.
Arendt, W. A. Ueber Verfassung und Geschichte der Stadte in Belgien seit dem
Aufgange des xvii Jahrhunderts bis zur Einverleibung des Landes in die
franzosische Republik. Raumer's Hist. Taschenbnch. Vol. vi. Leipzig. 18i5.
Die brabantische Revolution. 1789-90. Raumer's Hist. Taschenbuch.
Vol. IV. Leipzig. 1843.
Ameth, Ritter A, von. Biographic des Fursten Kaunitz. Ein Fragment. Vienna.
1899.
Borgnet, A. Lettres sur la Revolution braban^onne. Brussels. 1834.
Bright, T.F. Joseph II. London. 1897.
Brunner, S. Die theologische Dienerschaft am Hofe Josefs II. Vienna. 1868.
Die Mysterien der Auf klarung in Oesterreich. 1700-1800. Mainz. 1869.
Cornova, J. Leben Josefs II Romischer Kaisers. Prague. 1902.
Delplace, L. Joseph II et la Revolution braban^onne. Bruges. 1891.
Derival. Le voyageur dans les Pays-Bas autrichiens. Lettres sur I'etat actuel de
ce pays, 6 vols. Amsterdam. 1782-3.
Dohm, C. W. von. Denkwiirdigkeiten meiner Zeit oder Beitrage zur Geschichte
vom letzten Viertel des xviii und vom Anfange des xix Jahrhunderts. 1778-
1806. Hanover. 1815.
Fournier, A. Josef der Zweite. Leipzig. 1885.
Francotte, H. Essai historique sur la propagande des Encyclopedistes francpais dans
la principaute de Liege. Memoires couronnes de 1' Academic royale de Belgique.
Coll. in 8vo. Vol. xxx. 1879.
Friedberg, E. Die Grenzen zwischen Staat und Kirche und die Garantien gegen
deren Verletzung. Tubingen. 1872.
Gaillard, A. Histoire du Conseil de Brabant. 3 vols. Brussels. 1898-1903.
Galesloot, L. La commune de Louvaiu, ses troubles et ses emeutes au xvii" et an
xvHi" siecle. Louvain. 1871.
Geier, F. Die Durchfiihrung der kirchlichen Reformen Josephs II im vorderoster-
reichischen Breisgau. (Kirchenrechtl. Abhandlungen, hrsgbn. von U. Steetz,
XVI and XVII.) Stuttgart. 1905.
Geisler, A. F. Skizzen auB den Karakter und Handlungen Josefs II izt regiereuden
Kaisers der Deutschen. 1783-91. Halle. 1825.
Gigl, A. Kaiser Josef II und Herr Ottokar Lorenz. Vienna. 1863.
Graffer. Josefinische Curiosa. Vienna. 1848.
Gross-Hoffinger, A. J. Lebens- und Regierungsgeschichte Josefs des Zweiten, und
Gemalde seiner Zeit. Stuttgart. 1842.
Geschichte Josefs des Zweiten. Leif)zig. 1847.
Huber, F. X. Geschichte Josefs II. 2 vols. Vienna. 1792.
Hubert, E. Le voyage de I'empereur Joseph II dans les Pays-Bas autrichiens.
Memoires de I'Acad. royale de Belgique. Coll. in 4to. Vol. lviii. Brussels. 1900.
Bibliography. 947
Hubert, E. Les finances des Pays-Bas a raveneraeiit de Joseph II. Bulletin de la
Commission royale d'histoire, 6° serie, ix. Brussels. 1899.
Les garnisons de la Barriere dans les Pays-Bas autrichiens. Memoires de
I'Academie royale de Belgique. Coll. in 4to. Vol. lxii. Brussels. 1902.
Jager, A. Kaiser Josef II und Leopold II. Reform und Gegenreform. Vienna. 1869.
Juste, T. Histoire du regne de I'empereur Joseph II et de la revolution beige de
1790. 2 vols. Brussels. 1884.
Karajan, T. G. von. Maria-Theresia und Josef II wahrend der Mitregenschaft.
Vienna. 1865.
Kuntziger, J. Essai historique sur la propagande des Encyclopedistes frangais en
Belgique dans la seconde moitie du xviii" siecle. Memoires couronnes de
I'Academie royale de Belgique. Coll. in 8vo. Vol. xxx. Brussels. 1879.
Febronius et le Febronianisme. !Etude historique sur le mouvement re'forma^
teur provoque dans I'eglise oatholique au xviu° siecle par Febronius (J. N. de
Hontheim, eveque sufFragant de Treves). Memoires couronnes de I'Academie
royale de Belgique. Coll. in 8vo. Vol. xliv. Brussels. 1893.
Lorenz, O. Josef II und die belgische Revolution, nach den Papieren des General-
Gouverneurs Grafen Murray. Vienna. 1862. 'v
Lustkandl, W. Die Josephinische Ideen und ihr Erfolg. Vienna. 1881.
Maasburg, M. F. Geschichte der obersten Justizstelle in Wien. 1749-1848.
Prague. 1891.
Magnette, F. Joseph II et la liberte de I'Escaut. Memoires de I'Academie royale
de Belgique. Coll. in Bvo. Vol. lv. Brussels. 1897.
Menzel, K. A. Deutsche Geschichte unter Josef 11 und Friedrich II. Breslau.
1847.
Meyer, O. Febronius, Weihbischof J. N. von Hontheim, und sein Widerruf.
Tubingen. 1880.
Nosinich, J. Kaiser Josef II als Staatsmann und Feldherr. Oesterreichs Politik in
den Jahren 1763-90. Vienna. 1882.
Paganel, C. Histoire de Joseph II, empereur d'AUemagne. Paris. 1843.
Pezzel, J. Charakteristik Josefs des Zweiten. Eine historisch-biographische Skizze.
Vienna. 1803.
Pichler, C. Die Beziehungen zwischen Oesterreich und Frankreich innerhalb der
Jahre 1780-90. Znaym. 1898.
Poullet, E. Histoire du droit p^nal dans le duchd de Brabant depuis I'avenement
de Charles-quint jusqu'a la reunion de la Belgique a la France, a la fin du xviii*
siecle. 2 vols. Memoires couronnes de I'Academie royale de Belgique. Coll.
in 4to. Vols. XXXV, xxxvi. Brussels.
Professione, A. Anton-Felice Zondadari e Bartolomeo Pacca. Milan. 1899.
Ramshorn, K. Kaiser Josef II und seine Zeit. Leipzig. 1843.
Ritter, K. Kaiser Josef II und seine kirchlichen Reformen. Regensburg. 1867.
Robaulx de Sonmoy, A. L. P. de. Considerations sur le gouvernement des Pays-
Bas par Lievin-fitienne van der Noot. Collection de me'moires relatifs a
I'histoire de Belgique. Brussels. 1872.
Schlitter, H. Die Reise des Papstes Pius VI nach Wien und sein Aufenthalt
daselbst. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der Beziehungen Josefs II zur romischen
Curie. Fontes rerum Austriacarum. Part ii. Vol. xlvii. Vienna. 1892.
Pius VI und Josef II von der Riickkehr des Papstes nach Rom bis zum
Abschlusse des Concordats. Fontes rerum Austriacarum, Part ii. Vol. xlvii.
Vienna. 1894.
Theiner, A. Der Cardinal Johann Heinrich, Graf von Frankenberg, Erzbischof
von Mecheln, Primas von Belgien, und sein Kampf fiir die Freiheit der Kirche
und die bischijflichen Seminarien unter Kaiser Josef II. Freiburg i. B.
1860.
60—2
948 Joseph II.
Verhaegen, A. Les cinquante dernieres anneesderUtiiversitedeLouvain. Brussels.
1884.
Le Cardinal de Frankenberg, archeveque de Molines (1726-1804). Bruges.
1889.
Wappler, A. Geschichte der theologischen Facultat der K. K. Universitat zu
Wien. Vienna. 1884.
Wolf, A. Marie-Christine, Erzherzogin von Oesterreich. 2 vols. Vienna. 1863,
Die Aufhebung der Kloster in lunerosterreich. Vienna. 1871.
Die Verhaltnisse der Frotestanten in Oesterreich unter der Kaiserin Maria
Theresia und das Toleranz Patent. Raumer's Hist. Taschenbuch. Leipzig.
1878.
Kaiser Josef II und die Oesterreichischen Generalseminarien. Ranmer's
Hist. Taschenbuch. Leipzig. 1878.
Wolf, P. Ph. Geschichte der Veranderungen in dem religiosen, kirchlichen und
wissenschaftlichen Zustande der Oesterreichischen Staateu unter der Regierung
Josefs II. Vienna. 1795.
Wolfsgriiber, C. Christoph Anton Cardinal Migazzi, Fiirstbischof von Wien.
Saalzau. 1891.
Wuttke, H. Der Kampf der Freiheitsmanner und der Geistlicheu in Belgien in
den letzten Jahrzehnten des vorigen Jahrhunderts. Raumer's Hist. Taschen-
buch. Leipzig. 1864.
Zieglauer, F. von. Die politische Reformbewegung in Siebenbiirgen in der Zeit
Josefs II und Leopold II. Vienna. 1881.
[See also Bibliographies to Chapters XIX, XX.]
949
CHAPTER XIX.
CATHARINE II.
[Works in the Bmsian language are marked (R.), works in Polish (P.)-]
BIBLIOGRAPHY.
A complete bibliography of Catharine II and her reign is BilbassofF, B. von,
Katharina 11, Kaiserin von Russland im Urteile der Weltliteratur, authorised
German Translation from the Russian. Berlin. 1897. Vol. i comprises the
bibliographical literature to the death of Catharine ; Vol. ii that since her death
(1797-1896).
I. GENERAL,
A. Obioinal Authorities.
Sbornik imperatorskawo russkawo istoritscheskawo obschtschestra (Journal of
the Imperial Russian Historical Society, St Petersburg, from 1867 (R.)), contains in
a large proportion of its volumes, numbering 129 up to the present date, important
materials for the history of Catharine II, more especially her political correspondence,
that of N. Panin, etc. The same remark applies to the Archives of Prince VoronzoflF.
Moscow, from 1870. (R.)
Catharine II. Works. EditedbyA. Smirdin. 3 vols. St Petersburg. 1849-50. (R.)
Works. Edited on the basis of the original mss., with explanatory notes, by
A. N. Pypin. 6 vols. St Petersburg. 1901-3. (R.)
Memoires de I'lmp&atrice Catherine II, Merits par elle-meme. Precedes
d'une pre&ce par A. Herzen. London. 1859.
Diary of A. W. Chrapowitzki, January 18, 1782— September 17, 1793.
Edited by N. Barsukow. Moscow. 1901. (R.)
Correspondence with Frederick II. Sbornik. Vol. xx.
Joseph II und Katharina von Russland. Ihr Briefwechsel. Hrsgbn. von
A. von Arneth. Vienna. 1869.
Leopold II, Franz II und Katharina II. Ihre Correspondenz. Hrsgbn. von
A. Beer. Leipzig. 1874.
Correspondence with Grimm. Sbornik. Vols, xxiii, xxxiii, xliv.
Letters to Prince Charles Joseph de Ligne. Sbornik. Vols, xxrv, xxvij.
Letters to Voltaire. Sbornik. Vol. xxvii.
— — Correspondence with the Grand Duke Paul and the Grand Duchess Maria
Feodorovna. Ruskaya Starina. viii.
Correspondence with Potemkin. Ruskaya Starina. 1876.
950 Catharine II.
Eighteenth Centuryj The. Historical Journal edited by Peter Bartenew. 4 vols.
Moscow. 1869. (R.)
Masson, C. F. P. Memoires secretes sur la Russia, et particulierement sur la
fin du regne de Catherine II et sur celui de Paul I. 2ndedn. 3 vols. London.
1802. (Anon.)
Rambaud, A. Recueil des instructions donnees aux ambassadeurs et ministres de
France. Russie. 2 vols. Paris. 1890.
Segur, Comte L. Ph. de. Memoires ou souvenirs et anecdotes. 3 vols. Paris.
1826.
B. Later Works.
Barsukoff, A. Prince Grigori Grigorjewitsch Orlow. Russky Arkhiv. 18T3. (R.)
Bernhardi, T. von. Geschichte Russlands und der europ. Politik in den Jahren
1814-31. Vol. iij 2. (Staatengesch. d. neuesten Zeit.) Leipzig. 1875
Blum, K. L. Ein russischer Staatsraann. Denkwurdigkeiten des Grafen Sievers.
4 vols. Leipzig. 1864.
Bruckner, A. Katharina II. Berlin. 1883.
Potemkin. St Petersburg. 1891. (R.)
CarOj I. Katharina II von Russland. In Vortrage und Essays. Gotha. 1906.
Castera, I. H. Histoire de Catherine II, Imperatrice de Russie. 4 vols. Paris. 1880.
Denina, Ch. Pierre-le-Grand, traduit par J. F. Andrey avec des notes relatives aux
calomnies repandues dans divers ouvrages franfais centre I'lmperatrice
Catherine XL Paris. 1809.
Geismann, P. A. and Dubowski, A. J. Count P. I. Panin, 1721-89. St Petersburg,
1896. (R.)
Herrmann, E. Geschichte des russischen Staates. Vol. v-vii. (Gesch. d. europ.
Staaten.) Hamburg and Gotha. 1863, 60, 66.
Lariviere, C. de. Catherine la grande d'apres sa correspondance. Paris. 1896.
Morane, P. Paul P'" de Russie avant I'avenement. Paris. 1907.
Otscharkoff, W. W. G. A. Potemkin. St Petersburg. 1892. (R.)
Petruschewskij, Generalissimus Suworow. 3 vols. St Petersburg. 1884. (R.)
Potemkin, Prince G. A. Papers 1774-93. 2 vols. St Petersburg. 1893-6. (R.)
Samoilow, Count A. N. Leben und Taten des Gen. Feldmarschalles Fiirst G. A.
Potemkin. Russky Arkhiv. 1867. (R.)
Schiemann, T. Geschichte Russlands unter Kaiser Nikolaus I. Vol. i, chap. i.
Berlin. 1904.
Solowjoff, S. Geschichte Russlands von den altesten Zeiten. Vol. xxv-xxix.
Moscow. 1876-9. (R.)
Sybel, H. von. Katharina II von Russland. In Kleine historische Schriften.
Vol. I. 3rd edn. Stuttgart. 1880.
Tooke, W. History of Russia in the reign of Catharine II. 4th edn. 3 vols.
London. 1800.
Waliszewski, K. Le Roman d'une Imperatrice. 14th edn. Paris. 1902.
Autour d'un Trone. 3rd edn. Paris. 1894.
II. PERIOD TO 1762.
Bain, R. N. Peter III, Emperor of Russia. London. 1902.
Biographie Peters III. [By G. A. W. Helbig.] 2 vols. Tubingen. 1809.
Rulhiere, C. C. de. Histoire ou anecdotes pour la revolution de Russie en Tann^e
1762. Paris. 1797.
Saldern, C. von. Histoire de la vie de Pierre III, Empereur de toutes les Russies.
Metz. 1802.
Bibliography. 961
III. POLA>[t).
A. Obiginal Authobitt.
Angeberg, Count de. Recueil des traites, conventions et actes diplomatiques con-
cernant la Pologne 1762-1862. Paris. 1862.
B. Later Works.
Alkar, Ksi%z^. Repnini Polska w pierwszem czteroleciu Stanislawa Augusta. 2 vols.
Cracow. 1896. (P.)
Andreae, F. Preussische und russische Politik in Polen von der taurischen Reise
Katharinas II (Januar 1787) bis zur Abwendnng Friedrich WiUielms II von den
Hertzbergschen Planen (August 1789). (Diss.) Berlin. 1905.
Askenazy, S. Die letzte polnische Konigswahl. (Diss.) Gottingen. 1894.
Beer, A. Die erste Theilung Polens. 3 vols. Vienna. 1873.
BrQckner, A. Geschichte der polnischen Literatur. Leipzig. 1901.
Briiggen, E. von der. Polens Auflosung. Leipzig. 1878.
Kalinka, V. Der vierjahrige polnische Reichstag 1788 bis 1791. 2 vols. Berlin.
1896-8.
KarejefFjN. The Fall of Poland in historical literature. St Petersburg. 1888. (R.)
Polish Reforms in the 18th century. Wjestnik Jewropy V. 1889. (R.)
Korzon, T. Dzieje wewn^trzne Polski za Stanislawa Augusta. 2nd edn. 6 vols.
Warsaw. 1897. (P.)
Kostomaroffj N. J. Die letzten Jahre der Republik Polen. 2 vols. St Petersburg.
1886. (R.)
Kraszewski, J. J. Polska w czasie trzech rozbiorow. Posen. 1873. (P.)
Kutrzeba, St. Historya ustroju Polski w zarysie. Lemberg. 1906. (P.)
Lelewel, J. Histoire de Pologne. 2 vols. Paris. 1844.
Panowanie Krola polskiego Stanislawa Augusta. 6th edn. Brussels. 1847.
(P.)
Smitt^ F. de. Frederic II, Catherine et le partage de Pologne. Paris. 1861.
Solowjoff, S. M. Geschichte des Falls von Polen. Gotha. 1866.
Sorel, A. La question d'Orient au xviii'"' siecle, le partage de la Pologne et le
Traitd de Kainardji. 3rd edn. Paris. 1902.
Waliszewski, K. Walka stronnictw i programdw politycznych przed upadkiem
Rzeczypospolitej. Cracow. 1887. (P.)
Polska i Europa w drugiej polowie xvin stuleciu. Cracow. 1890. (P.)
IV. THE EASTERN QUESTION AND GENERAL FOREIGN POLICY.
A. Orioinai/ Authorities.
Dubrowin, N. The Union of the Crimea with Russia. RescriptSj letters, relations
and reports. 4 vols. St Petersburg. 1886-9. (R.)
Martens, F. de. Recueil des traites et conventions conclus par la Russie avec les
puissances etrangeres. Vols, n, vi, ix, xiii. St Petersburg. 1876-1902.
Noradounghian, G. Recueil d' Actes internationaux de I'empire Ottoman. Vols, i
and u. Paris. 1897-1900.
B. Later Works.
Bergbohm, K. Die bewaflfnete Neutralitat, 1780-3. Berlin. 1884.
Briickner, A. The War of Russia against Sweden. St Petersburg. 1869. (R.)
Grot, I. K. Catharine II and Gustavus III. St Petersburg. 1877. (R.)
952 Catharine II.
Hammer-Purgstall, J. Frhr. von. Geschichte der Chane der Krim. Vienna. 1866.
Petroff. The War of Russia against Turkey and the Polish Confederates, 1769-74.
6 vols. St Petersburg. 1866-74. (R.)
The Second Turkish War, 1787-91. 2 vols. St Petersburg. 1880. (R.)
Reimann, E. Neuere Geschichte des preussischen Btaates seit 1763. (Gesch. d.
europ. Staaten.) 2 vols. Gotha. 1882-8.
Schiemann, T. Geschichte Russlands unter Kaiser Nikolaus I. Vol. i, chap. viii.
Berlin. 1904.
Schlozer, K. von. Ffiedrich der Grosse und Katharina II. Berlin. 1869.
Sorel, A. La question d'Orient au xviii" siecle, le partage de la Pologne et le traitd
de Kainardji. 3rd edn. Paris. 1902.
Catherine II et la Revolution Franijaise. In Essais d'histoire et de critique.
Paris. 1883.
Tschetschulin. The foreign policy of Russia at the beginning of the reign of
Catharine II. St Petersburg. 1896. (R.)
Zinkeisen, J. W. Geschichte des osmanischen Reiches in Europa. Vols, v, n,
(Gesch. d. europ. Staaten.) Gotha. 1867-9.
V. HOME AFFAIRS,
A. Obicinal Acthobities.
Archives of the Imperial Council. I. 2 vols. St Petersburg. 1869. (R.)
Bibikoff, A. Memoirs. Moscow. 1817. (R.)
Instruction de Sa Maj. Imper. Katherine II pour la Commission charg^e de dresser
le projet d'un nouveau code de loix(!). St Petersburg. 1893. L. Panteljeew
^diteur. (In Russian and French.)
Acts of the Legislative Commission. Sbornik. Vols, rv, viii, xrv, xxxii.
Complete Collection of the Laws of the Russian Empire, since the year 1649.
Vols, xvi-xxiii. St Petersburg. 1830, etc. (R.)
B. Later Works.
Andrejewski. Governors-General, Wojewodes and Governors. St Petersburg.
1864. (R.)
Annalen der Regierung Katharina II, Kaiserin von Russland. (Hrsgbn. von H.
Storch.) Vol. I : Gesetzgebung. Leipzig. 1798.
Bienemann, F. Die Statthalterschaftszeit in Liv- und Estland (1783-96). Leipzig.
1886.
Danewski. History of the Origin and Growth of the Imperial Council. St Peters-
burg. 1860. (R.)
Eckardt, J. L;viand im 18. Jahrhundert. Leipzig. 1876.
Die baltischen Pi-ovinzen Russlands. Leipzig. 1868.
Engelmann, J. Die Leibeigenschaft in Russland. Leipzig. 1884.
FirsofF, N. Die Regierung und die Gesellschaft in ihren Beziehungen zum Aussen-
handel Russlands wahrend der Regierung Katharinas II. (R.)
Gradowski, A. D. The higher Administration of Russia in the 18th century and
the Governors-General. St Petersburg. 1866. (R.)
Hrusehewskij, M. Outlines of the History of the People of the Ukraine. 2nd edn.
St Petersburg. 1906. (R.)
Ikonniko£F, W. S. Arsenij Mazjeewitsch. Historical-biographical Sketch.
Ruskaya Starina. 1879. (R.)
Lappo-Danilewski, A. Die russische Handelskommission von 1763-96. In
Beitrage ziiir russischen Geschichte, hrsgbn. von O. Hotzsch. Berlin. 1907.
Bibliography. 953
Lappo-Danilewskij A. Sketch of the domestic policy of Catharine II. St Peters^
burg. 1898. (R.)
Lehtoneiij U. L. Die polnischen Provinzen Russlands unter Katharina II in den
Jahren 1772-82. Berlin. 1907.
Mordowzeff. Pretenders and robbers. 2 vols. St Petersburg. 1867. (R.)
Pachman, S. W. History of the Codification of the Civil Law. St Petersburg.
1876. (R.)
Romanowitsch-Slawatinskij. The nobility in Russia from the beginning of the
18th century to the abolition of Serfdom. St Petersburg. 1870. (R.)
Semjewski, W. J. The Peasant Question in Russia in the 18th and in the first half
of the 19th century. St Petersburg. 1888. (R.)
The Peasants during the reign of Catharine II. 2nd edn. 2 vols. St Peters-
burg. 1901-3. (R.)
Storch, H. Historisch-statistisches Gemalde des Russischen Reiches am Ende des
18. Jahrh. und unter der Regierung Katharina II. Vol. vi. Riga. 1797.
Tugan-Baranowskij M. Russian manufactories in the past and the present.
2nd edn. St Petersburg. 1900. (R.)
Wittscheffsky, V. Russlands Handels-, Zoll- und Industriepolitik von Peter dem
Grossen bis auf die Gegenwart. Berlin. 1905.
VI. PERSONAL SURROUNDINGS AND INTELLECTUAL ACTIVITIES.
A. Original Authorities.
Daschkoff, Princess. Memoirs of the history of the Empress Catharine II.
Original French Text in Archives of Prince Voronzoff, vol. xxi. Moscow.
1881. German version, with introduction by A. Herzen. 2 vols. Hamburg.
1857. English translation by Mrs W. Bradford. 2 vols. London. 1840.
Derschawin, G. R. Works. Edited by J. K. Grot. 9 vols. St Petersburg.
1864-83. (R.)
Radischtschew, A. N. Reise von Petersburg nach Moskau. 1790. (R.) Ausgahen.
London. 1868. Leipzig. 1876. St Petersbui-g (?). 1868.
Wisin, D. J. First complete collection of Works. St Petersburg. 1888. (R.)
B. Later Works.
Adeluiig, F. Katharinens der Grossen Verdienste um die Vergleichung der
Sprachenkunde. St Petersburg. 1816.
Andreae, Fr. Bemerkungen zu den Briefen der Kaiserin Katharina II von Russland
an Charles Joseph Prince de Ligne. In Beitrage zur russischen Geschichte.
Edited by O. Hotzsch. Berlin. 1907.
Bilbassoff, B. von. Prince de Ligne in Russia. Ruskaya Starina. Vols, lxxiii,
Lxxiv. St Petersburg. 1892. (R.)
Bruckner, A. Geschichte der russischen Literatnr. Leipzig. 1905.
Grot, J. K. Catharine II in her correspondence with Grimm. 2 vols. St Peters-
burg. 1879, 1884. (R.)
Helwig, G. A. W. Russische Gunstlinge. Tubingen. 1809.
Otscharkofi', W. W. Princess K. R. Daschkow. St Petersburg. 1893. (R.)
Tourneux, M. Diderot et Catherine II. Paris. 1899.
[/See also Bibliographies to Chapters XVIII arid XX.]
954
CHAPTER XX.
FREDERICK II AND HIS SUCCESSOR.
(1) HOME AND FOREIGN AFFAIRS.
I. General.
Arnethj Ritter A. von. Maria Theresias letzte Regierungszeit. 1763-80. Vol. iv.
Vienna. 1879.
Koser, R. Konig Friedrich der Grosse. Vol. ii. Part 2. 3rd edn. Stuttgart.
1905.
Philippson, M. Geschichte des preussischen Staatswesens vom Tode Friedrichs des
Grossen bis zu den Freiheitskriegen. 2 vols. Leipzig. 1880-2.
Ranke, L. von. Die Deutschen Machte und der Fiirstenbund. Deutsche Geschichte
von 1780 bis 1790. 2 vols. Sammtl. Werke. Vols, xxxi, zxxu. Leipzig.
1871-2.
Reimannj E. Neuere Geschiclite des preussischen Staats. Vols, ii and ui. (Gesch.
der europ. Staaten.) Gotha. 1888.
II. MoNOeRAPHS.
Beer, A. Zur Geschichte des bairischen Erbfolgeskrieges. Historische Zeitschrift.
Vol. XXXV.
Die Sendung Thnguts in das preussische Hauptquartier und der Friede zu
Teschen. Histor. Zeitschrift. Vol. xxxvm.
Krauelj R. Graf Hertzberg als Minister Friedrich Wilhelms III. Berlin. 1899.
Naud^j A. Der preussische Staatsschatz unter Konig Friedrich Wilhelm II und
seine Erschopfung. Beitrage zur preussischen Finanzgeschichte im 18. Jahr-
hundert. Fart i. Forschungeu zur Brandenburgischen und Preussischen
Geschichte. Vol. v.
Poschinger, H. von. Bankwesen und Bankpolitik in Preussen. Vol. i. Berlin.
1878.
Sorel, A. La decadence de la Prusse apres Frederic II. Revue des Deux Mondes.
Vol. LV. Paris. 1883.
Ziekursch, J. Aus der Entwicklungsgeschichte der preussischen Bureaucratic ira
fridericianischen Schlesieu. Preussische Jahrbiicher. Vol. xxxi, Berlin.
(2) POLAND AND PRUSSIA.
Angeberg, Count de. Recueil des traitds^ conventions et actes diplomatiques
concernant la Pologne 1762-1862. Paris. 1862.
Arneth, Ritter A. von. Geschichte Maria Theresias. Vol. vm. Vienna. 1877.
Bailleu, P. Graf Hertzberg. Historische Zeitschrift. Vol. xui. Munich. 1879.
Bibliography. 955
Beer, A. Die erste Theilung Polens. 3 vols. Vienna. 1873.
Friedrich II und van Swieten. Leipzig. 1874.
Briiggenj E. von der. Polens Auflosung. Leipzig. 1878.
Duncker, M. Die Besitzergreifung von Westpreussen. In Aus der Zeit Friedrichs
des Grossen und Friedrich Wilhelms III. Leipzig. 1876.
Frederick II. Politische Correspondenz. Vols, xxm-xxxii. Berlin. 1896-1908.
(Euvres. Vol. vi. Berlin. 1847.
[Gortz, J. E., Count de.] Memoires et actes authentiques relatifs aux negotiations
qui ont precede le partage de la Pologne. Weimar, 1810.
Heigelj K. T. von. Deutsche Geschichte vom Tode Friedrichs des Grossen bis zur
Auflosung des alten Reiches. Vol. i. Stuttgart. 1899.
Joachim, E. Johann Friedrich von Domhardt. Berlin. 1899.
Kalinka, V. Der vierjahrige polnische Reichstag 1788 bis 1791. 2 vols. Berlin.
1896, 1898.
Eoser, R. Konig Friedrich der Grosse. Vol. ii, chap, viii, 3, 4. 3rd edn.
Stuttgart. 1905.
Aus der Vorgeschichte der ersten Theilung Polens. Sitzungsberichte der
K. Preuss. Akademie der Wissenschaften. xm. 1908.
Krauel, R. Prinz Heinrich von Preussen als Politiker. Berlin. 1902.
Briefwechsel zwischen Heinrich Prinz von Preussen und Katharina II von
Russland. Berlin. 1903.
Martens, F. de. Recueil des traites et conventions conclus par la Russie avec les
puissances etrangeres. Vols, ii and vi. St Petersburg. 1875, 1883.
Preuss, A. T. Ewald Friedrich Graf von Hertzberg. Berlin. 1908,
Reimann, E. Neuere Geschichte des preussischen Staates seit 1763. Vols, i and ii.
(Gesch. d. europ. Staaten.) Gotha. 1882-8.
Schlozer, K. von. Friedrich der Gi-osse und Katharina II. Berlin. 1859.
Smitt, F. de. Frederic II, Catherine et le partage de Pologne. Paris. 1861.
Solowjow, S. M. Geschichte des Falls von Polen. Gotha. 1865,
Sybel, H. von. Die erste Theilung Polens. In Kleine Historisohe Schriften.
Vol. m. Stuttgart. 1880.
Wittichen, P. Die polnische Politik Preussens 1788-90. Gottingen. 1899.
[/See also Bibliographies to Chapters XVIII, XIX, 1
956
CHAPTER XXL
DENMARK UNDER THE BERNSTORFFS AND STRUENSEE.
I. MANUSCRIPTS AND BIBLIOGRAPHIES.
The disposition of the mass of unpuhlished material preserved in the national
archives at Copenhag'sn and Christiania is indicated in the Danmark-Norges Historie
of Professor Edvard Holm. Many private collections in Northern Germany have
been examined by Dr Aage Friis and their contents described in Lis Bernstorf&che
Papiere, and Bernstorff og Guldberg.
For printed books reference may be made to C. W. Bruun's Bibliotheca Danica
(1482-1830), 4 vols., Copenhagen, 1872-1902, to the yearly bibliographies of the
Danish Historical Society published in the Historisk Tidsskrift (Copenhagen, 1840,
etc.), and to the French edition of C. F. Allen's History, mentioned below.
II. CONTEMPORARY AUTHORITIES.
Aarsberetninger fra det Kongelige Geheimearchiv indeholdende Bidrag til dansk
Historie afutrykteKilder. Ed. C. F. Wegener. 7 vols. Copenhagen. 18S2-83.
Aktstykker til Oplysning om Stavnsbaandets Historie. Ed. J. A. Fridericia.
Copenhagen. 1888.
Almanak, Dansk Historisk, udgiven af Det Kongelige Videnskabernes Societet.
Copenhagen. 1760-82.
Baden, T. Beskrivelse over den paa Godset Bernstorff ivaerksatte nye Indretning
i Landbruget. Copenhagen. 1774.
Bernstorff, Count J. H. E. Correspondance ministerielle du comte J. H. E.
Bernstorff 1751-70. Ed. P. Vedel. Copenhagen. 1882.
Bernstorffs, the. Bernstorffsche Fapiere. Ausgewahlte Briefe und Aufzeichnungen
die Familie Bernstorff betreffend aus der Zeit 1732 bis 1836. Ed. A. Friis.
Copenhagen and Christiania. Vol. i, 1904. Vol. ii, 1907.
Biehl, C. D. Charlotte Dorothea Biehl's Breve om Kong Christian VII. Ed. L. T. A.
Bobs'. Copenhagen. 1901.
Brown, J. The Northern Courts, containing original memoirs of the sovei'eigns of
Sweden and Denmark since 1766. 2 vols. London. 1818.
Documents r^latifs a I'histoire de la Russie. Vol. xiii. St Petersburg.
Eggers, C. U. D. von. Denkwurdigkeiten aus dem Leben des Koniglich Danischen
Staatsministers Andreas Petrus Grafen von Bernstorff. Part ii : Diplomatiscbe
Actenstucke. Copenhagen. 1800.
(Falckensldold, S, O. ?) Autheutische und hochstmerkwiirdige Aufklarungen fiber
die Geschichte der Grafen Struensee und Brandt, aus dem franzosischen Manu-
script eines hohen Ungenannten zum erstenmal iibersetzt und gedruckt
"Germanien" (Kempten). 1788.
Falckenskiold, S. O. Me'moires de M. de Falckenskiold, ofScier general au
service de S. M. le roi de Dannemarck. Ed. P. Secretan. Paris. 1826.
Frederick II. Politische Correspondenz Friedr. d. Grosseu. Vol. i-xxx. Berlin.
1879-1905.
Bibliography. 957
Gaspari, A. C. Urkunden und Materialien zur nahern Kenntniss der Geschichte
und Staatsverwaltung Nordischer Reiche. 3 vols. Hamburg. 1786-90.
Guldberg, O. H, Tale til sine Landsmaend ved Anledning af Hans Kongelige
Hdjhed vor naadigste Kronprinses Konfirmation. Copenhagen. 176S.
Hesse-Cassel; Charles, Landgrave of. Memoires de mon Temps. Copenhagen. 1861.
Translated into German, with introduction by K. Bernhardi. Cassel. 1866.
Holberg, L. Danmarks eg Norges gejstlige og verdslige Stat. 3rd edition.
Copenhagen. 1762.
Jessen, £. J. Det Kongerige Norge, fremstillet efter dets naturlige og borgerlige
Tilstand. 1763.
Jorgensen, A. D. Regeringsskiftet 14 April, 1784. Fremstillinger og Aktstykker
udgivne af de under Kultusministeriet samlede Arkiver. Copenhagen. 1888.
Keith, Sir Robert Murray. Memoirs and Correspondence. Ed. Mrs Gillespie Smyth.
2 vols. London. 1849.
Lutken, O. D. Undersogninger angaaende Statens almindelige Oeconomie.
2 vols. Soro. 1760.
Lynar, Count R. F. Hinterlassene Staatsschriften. Hamburg. 1793.
Moller, J. Mnemosyne, eller samliug af faedrenelandske Minder. 4 vols. Copen-
hagen. 1830-3.
Miintcr, B. (the elder) and Hee, J. Bekehrungsgeschichte der vormaligen beyden
Grafen Johann Priedrich Struensee...von Hrn. D. Balthasar Miinter und
Enewold Brandt... von Hm. Probst Jorgen Hee. 3rd edition. Copenhagen and
Leipzig. 1773. (Translated into English, French, German, etc., various dates.)
Nyerup, R. (editor). Liixdorphiana, eller Bidrag til den danske Literairhistorie,
uddragne af B. W. Liixdorphs efterladte Samlinger. Copenhagen. 1791.
[Miscellaneous documents.]
Pontoppidan, E. Prokantsler Erik Pontoppidans Levnetsbeskrivelse og bans Dagbok
fra en Reise i Norge i Aaret 1749. Ed. N. E. Hofman (Bang). Odeuse. 1874.
E. (and others). Den Danske Atlas eller Kongeriget Dannemark, etc.
7 vols. Copenhagen. 1763-81.
Reventlow Papers. Efterladte Papirer fra den Reventlowske Familiekreds. Ed.
L. T. A. Bob^. 7 vols. Copenhagen. 1895, etc.
Reverdil, E. S. F. Struensee et la cour de Copenhague 1760-72. Memoires de
Reverdil. Ed. A. Roger. Paris. 1858. Danish translation. Copenhagen. 1859.
Lettres sur le Danemarc. 2 vols. Geneva. 1764.
Roque, B. Les delices du Danemark. Copenhagen. 1747. Danish translation.
Samlinger, Danske, for Historie, Topograph!, Personal- og Literatur-historie.
12 vols. Copenhagen. 1865-79.
Schriften, die in Sachen der Grafen Struensee und Brandt herausgegeben sind.
Copenhagen. 1772.
Struensee. Memoires anthentiques et interessans du histoire des comtes Struensee
et Brandt. Copenhagen and Brussels. 1789.
Memoires pour servir a la connoissance de I'etat actuel du royaume de
Danemarck. (Translated from the German by M. de Schirach.) 1786.
Suhm, P. F. Samlade Skrifter. Ed. N. Nyerup. 15 vols. Copenhagen. 1788-99.
Tractater, Danske, 1761-1800. Udgivet par Udenrigsministeriets Foranstaltning.
Copenhagen. 1882.
Treschow. Bidrag til Grev Frederik Danneskjold Samsdes Levnetsbeskrivelse.
Copenhagen. 1796.
WraxaU, Sir N. W. Posthumous Memoirs of his own time. London.
Yves, Marquis L. de. Geheime Hof- und Staats-Geschichte des Konigreichs Dane-
mark in den Zeiten nach der Struenseeischen Revolution. "Germanien."
1790.
958 Denmark under the Bernstorffs and Struensee.
III. SECONDARY WORKS.
Allen, C. F. Haandbog i Faedrelandets Historie, med stadig Henblik paa Polkets
og'Statens indre Udvikling. 7tli edition. Copenhagen. 1870. German
translation by N. Falck. 2nd edition. Kiel. 1846. French translation by
E. Beauvoise. Copenhagen. 1878.
Barthelemy, Count E. M. de. Histoire des relations de la France et du Danemarck
sous la ministere du Comte de Bernstorff 1751-70. Copenhagen. 1887.
Bergbohm, C. Die bewafFnete Neutralitat 1780-3. Eine Entwickelungsphase des
Volkerrechts im Seekriege. Berlin. 1884.
Blangstrupj C, Christian VII eg Caroline Mathilde. 2nd edition. Copenhagen
1891.
Bremer, J. Geschichte Schleswig-Holsteins bis zum Jahre 1848. Kiel. 1864.
Bricka, C. F., Steenstrup, J. and Laursen, L. Dansk biografisk Lexikon. 19 vols.
Copenhagen. 1906.
Bruun, C. Kjobenhavn. 3 vols. Copenhagen. 1887-1901.
Christiansen, C. (of Horsholm). Horsholms Historie £ra 1306 til 1875. Copenhagen.
1879.
V. Christian den VH's Sindssygdom. Copenhagen and Christiania. 1906.
Danielson, J. R. Die nordische Frage in den Jahren 1746-51. Helsingfors. 1888.
Danmarks Riges Historie. Vol. v; by Professor E. Holm. Copenhagen, n.d.
Fauchille, P. La diplomatie fran^aise et la ligue des ueutres de 1780. Paris. 1893.
Fjelstrup, A. Skilsmisseprocessen imellera Kong Kristian VII og Dronning
Karoline Matilde. Copenhagen. 1908. [Documents.]
Flamand, L. J. Christian den syvendes Hof, eller Struensee og Caroline Mathilde.
Copenhagen. 1854. [Documents.]
Friis, A. Andreas Peter Bernstorff og Ove Hoegh Guldberg. Copenhagen. 1899.
Bernstorfferne og Danmark. Vol. i. Copenhagen. 1903. Also, in German :
Die Bernstorffs. Vol. i. Leipzig. 1905.
Garde, H. G. Efterretninger om den Danske og Norske Somagt. 4 vols. Copen-
hagen. 1832-5.
Den dansk-norske Somagts Historie 1700-1814. Copenhagen. 1852.
Giessing, H. P. Struensee og Guldberg, eller tvende Revolutioner ved Hoffet i
Kjobenhavn. Copenhagen. 1849.
Kong Frederik VI's Regierings-historie. 2 vols. Copenhagen. 1850.
German edition. Kiel. 1851b
Hanssen, G. Die Auf hebung der Leibeigenschaft und die Umgestaltung der guts-
herrlichbauerlichen Verhaltnisse uberhaupt in den Herzogthiimern Schleswig
und Holstein. St Petersburg. 1861.
Hansen, V. F. Stavnsbaandslosningen og Landboreformerne set fra National-
okonomiens Standpunkt. 2 vols. Copenhagen. 1888.
Helweg, L. Den Danske Kirkes Historie efter Reformationen. 5 vols. Copen-
hagen. 1861-5.
Holm, E. Om det Syn paa Kongemagt, Folk og Borgerlig Frihed, der udviklede
sig i den dansk-norske Stat 1746-70. Copenhagen. 1883.
Danmark-Norges Historie fra den store nordiske Krigs Slutning til Rigernes
Adskillelse (1720-1814). Copenhagen. 1890, etc.
Danmark-Norges indre Historie 1660-1720. 2 vols. Copenhagen. 1885-6.
Nogle Hovedtraek af Trykkefrihedstidens Historie 1770-3. Copenhagen.
1886.
Host, J. K. Geheimekabinetsminister Grev Johann Friedrich Struensee og bans
Ministerium. 3 vols, (with documents). Copenhagen. 1824. German transla-
tion. 2 vols. Copenhagen. 1826-7.
Bibliography. 969
Ingerslev, V. Danmarks Laeger og Laegevaesen fra de aeldste Tiden indtil aar 1800.
2 vols. Copenhagen. 1871-3.
Jenssen-Tuschj G. F. von. Die Verschworung gegen die Konigin Caroline MatWlde
von Danemark, geb. Prinzessin von Grossbritannien und Irland, uud die Grafeu
Struensee und Brandt. Leipzig. 1864. [With documents.]
Kayser, R. Deutsches Leben in Danemark. Preussische Jahrbiicherj xxi, 2.
Berlin. 1908.
Kjaei', S. Fi-a Stavnsbaandets Dage. Optegnelser efter Tingboger. Copenhagen.
1888.
Koch, H. L. S. P. Kong Christian den sjettes Historie. Copenhagen. 1886.
Lorentzen, K. Graf Johann Hartwig Ernst von Bernstorff. Graf Andreas Peter von
Berustorff. In Allgemeine deutsche Biographic. Vol. ii. Leipzig. 1875.
Moller, H. L. Kong Christian den Sjette og Grev Kristian Ernst af Stolberg-
Wernigerode. Copenhagen. 1889.
Nilsson, N. O. J. Danmarks upptradande i den svenska tronfoljarefragan ftren
1739-43. Efter handlingar 1 K. Dauska Geheimearkivet och Svenska Riks-
arkivet. Malmo. 1876.
Raumer, F. von. Beitrage zur neueren Geschichte aus dem britischen und franzo-
sischen Reichsarchive. in, i : Europa vom Ende des siebenjahrigeu bis zum
Ende des amerikanischen Krieges (1763-83). Leipzig. 1839.
Rawertj O. J. Danmarks industrielle Forhold fra de aeldste Tider indtil 1848.
Copenhagen. 1850.
Reedtz, H. C. de. Repertoire... des traites conclus par la couronne de Dannemarck,
...jusqu'a 1800. Gottingen. 1826.
Stolpe, P. M. Dagspressen i Danmark, dens Vilkaar og Personer indtil Midten af
det attende Aarhundrede. 4 vols. Copenhagen. 1878-82.
Trier, H. Revolutionen i Raadstuen, AprQ 1771. Aktstykker fra Struensee-Tiden
verdrorende Staden Kjobenhavn's Styrelse. Copenhagen. 1905.
Vaupell, O. F. von. Den Danske Haers Historie til Nutiden og den Norske Haers
Historie indtil 1814. 2 vols. Copenhagen. 1872-6.
Vedel, P. Den aldre Grev Bernstorffs Ministerium. Inledning til Correspon-
dance ministerielle du comte J. H. E. Bernstorff. Copenhagen. 1882.
S. Den Dansk-Norske Hoiesterets Historie under Enevaelden fra 1661 indtil
1790. Copenhagen. 1888.
Ward, A. W. Caroline Matilda. Dictionary of National Biography. Vol. ix.
London. 1887. [With bibliography.]
Wilkins, W. H. A Queen of Tears, Caroline Matilda, Queen of Denmark and
Norway. 2 vols. Loudon. 1904. [With extracts from English State Papers.]
Wittich, K. Struensee. Leipzig. 1879 [With critical bibliography.] Danish
translation by C. Blangstrup, with extracts from the Saxon ambassadorial
despatches. Copenhagen. 1837.
See also numerous articles in the following periodical publications :
Danske Magasin — Historisk Tidsskrift — NythistoriskTidsskrift — Musaeum —
Norsk historisk Tidsskrift — Oekonomisk Magasin — Zeitschrift der Gesellsohaft
fur Schleswig-Holstein-Lauenburgische Geschichte.
960
CHAPTER XXII.
SWEDEN FROM 1720-92.
I. BIBLIOGRAPHIES.
Alpbabetisk register ofver handlingar rorande Skandinavenska Historia. Stock-
holm. 1865.
Catalogus der Geschiedenis-Skandinavie. The Hague. 1904.
Historisk Tidsskrift. Inneh&Usofversikt, 1881-90. Stockholm. 1891.
Setterwall, K. Forteckning ofver Acta Sverica i Calendars of State Papers. Stock-
holm. 1889 sqq.
II. ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS.
Adlerbeth, G. C. Anteckningar. Orebro. 1856-7.
Bjornstjernaj Count M. F. F. de. Mdmoires posthumes du Comte de Stedingk,
Paris. 1844-7.
Bordes de Folliquy, G. L. A. de. Journal de la campagne de Suede et de Dane-
mark, 1789. Caen. 1904.
Bouille, F. C. A. de. Marquis. M^moires. Paris. 1869.
British Museum mss. Add. 28,066 [relating to Gustavus Ill's naval victories over the
Russian fleet]. (Jn English.)
Ghreusvard, G. J., Baron. Dagboksanteckningar, 1776-84. Stockholm. 1878.
Engestrom, J. von. Historiska anteckningar. Stockholm. 1877.
Engestrom, Baron Lars von. Minnen och Anteckningar. Stockholm. 1876.
Fersen, Count Oxel Fredrick. Historiska skrifter. Stockholm. 1867-72.
Gustavus III and Russia. Journal (Sbornik) of the Imperial Russian Historical
Society. Vols, xiii, xix, xxiii. St Petersburg. 1881, etc.
Bref till C. A. Wachmeister och U. G. Franc. Orebro. 1860.
BreftillG. M. Armfelt. Stockholm. 1883. {In French.)
Discours, le 26 avril 1774, lors de la deliberation sur I'etablissement de la
liberte de la Fresse. Lausanne. 1775.
Efterlemnade papper. Stockholm. 1893.
Lettre a M. le Baron Stael de Holstem. Paris. 1791. [Relates to the
treatment of King Louis XVI.]
Tal till Riksens-Stander, 25 Jan. 1771. Stockholm. 1773.
Tal till Riksens-Stander, 23 Juni 1786. Stockholm. [1786.]
Tal till Riksens-Stander, 2 Feb. 1789. Stockholm. [1789.]
Tal hallit pa. Riks Salen, 17 Feb. 1789, i alia Fyra Stindens narraro. Stock-
holm. [1789.]
Tal hWlit til Riksens-Stander, 28 April, 1789. Stockholm. [178a]
Bibliography. 961
Hamilton, Count A. M. Anecdoter till svenska historien under Gustaf III:s
regering. Stockholm. 1901.
Hedwig, Elizabeth Charlotte, Consort of Charles XIII, King of Sweden. Dagbok.
Stockholm. 1902.
Hopken, A. J. von. Count. Skrifter i urval utgifna af C. Silfeerstolpe. Stockholm.
1890 sqq.
Khrapovitsky, A. V. Diary. St Petersburg. 1874. {In Russian.)
Liljencrantz, J., Count. Anteckningar. St Petersburg. 1878.
Louis XV, King of France. Correspondance secrete inedite. Ed. E. Bontaric.
Paris. 1866.
Schroderheim, E. Anteckningar. Orebro. 1861.
Bref. Stockholm. 1900.
Schiick, J. H. E. Ur Nils von Rosensteins brefsamling. Stockholm. 1906.
Silfverstolpe, C. Historiskt Bibliothek. Stockholm. 1875, etc.
Stael-Holstein, Baron E. M. de. Correspondance diplomatique, 1783-99. Ed.
Leruzon le Due. Paris. 1881.
Tessin, Count C. G. Dagbok. Stockholm. 1824.
III. CONTEMPORARY OR NEARLY CONTEMPORARY NARRATIVES.
Berattelse om den seger Svenska Armeens Flotta under Thergens eget hoge Befal
den 9-10 Juli 1790 wunnit ofwer den Ryska Skargftrds Flottan. Stockholm.
1790.
Gnstavus III. Letters of the Swedish Court written chiefly in the early part of the
reign of Gustavus III. London. 1819.
Louisa Ulrica, Queen. Luise Ulrike, die schwedische Schwester Friedrichs des
Grossen. Ungedruckte Briefe, etc. Hrsgbn. von F. Arnheim. Vol. i.
(1726-46.) Gotha. 1909.
Michelessi, D. Lettre sur la Revolution arrivee en Suede le 19 aout 1772. Stock-
holm. 1773.
Nassau-Siegen, Prince Charles Henry Nicholas Otho of. Extrait de la campagne du
Prince de Naasau-Siegen centre les armdes Suedoises en 1789. [Paris.'' 1790.]
Lettre a Sa Majestd le Roi de Suede et refutation de la relation qui lui est
attribuee de la bataille navale du 13 aout 1789, etc. St Petersburg. 1789.
Sheridan, C. L. A history of the late Revolution in Sweden. London. 1778.
Sierakowski, Count. Histoire de I'assassinat de Gustavo III. Paris. 1797.
St&hlberg, G. An history of the late Revolution in Sweden, 19 of August, 1772.
Edinburgh. 1776.
State Papers relating to the change of the Constitution of Sweden. London. 1772.
Tessin, Count C. G. Letters to a young Prince from his Governor. London.
1765.
Thomas, D. H. Versuch uber Schwedens Geschichte und dermalige Staatsver-
anderung. Stralsund. 1780.
IV. LATER WORKS.
A. The Hats and Caps.
Arnheim, F. Die Memoiren der Konigin Ulrike Luise. Halle. 1888.
Beskow, B., Baron. Minne af K. G. Tessin. Stockholm. 1864.
Botin, A. af. Svenska Folkets Historia. Stockholm. 1789-92.
Cedercreutz, H., Baron. Sverige under Ulrika Eleonora och Fredrik. Stockholm,
1821.
C. M. H. VI. CH. XXII. 61
962 Swedish History, 1720-92.
Danielson, J. R. Die nordische Frage in den Jahren 1746-61. Helsingfors. 1888.
Fryxellj A. Berattelser ur Svenska Historien. Stockholm. 1831, etc.
Geijer, E. G. Teckning af Frihetstiden. Stockholm. 1839.
Holm, E. Danmarks-Norges Historie, 1720-1814. Copenhagen. 1902.
Jansson, H. Sveriges accession till Hannovei'ska AUiansen, 1725-7. Stockholm.
1893.
Schyhergson, M. G. Riksdagsmanndvalen i Abo under Frihetstiden. Helsingfors.
1891.
Stavenow, L. Geschichte Schwedens, 1718-72. German transl. by C. Roch.
Vol. VII of Gesch. Schwedens. (Gesch. d. europ. Staaten.) Gotha. 1908.
Svedelius, W. E. Minne af Grefve Arvid Horn. Stockholm. 1879.
Sveriges Historia. Vol. iv. Stockholm. 1877-81.
Tengberg, N. A. Bidrag till historien om Sveriges Krig med Ryssland Aren 1741-3.
Lund. 1867-60.
Om Frihetstiden. Stockholm. 1867.
Tengberg, R. Sverige under Partitidhvarvet. Stockholm. 1879.
Tessin, Count C. G. Tessin och Tessiniana. Stockholm. 1819.
B. GuSTAVUS III.
(1) General.
Ahnfelt, A. Ur svenska hofvets lif. Stockholm. 1880-3. German edition.
Stuttgart. 1887.
Bain, R. N. Gustavus IH and his contemporaries. London. 1894.
Beskow, Baron Bron. Minne af K. Gjorwell. Stockholm. 1863.
Om Gustaf HI sSsom Konung och menniska. Stockholm. 1860-9. French
edition. Stockholm. 1868.
Fryxell, A. Berattelser ur Svenska Historien. Stockholm. 1831, etc.
Gustavus HI. Geschichte Gustavs des Dntten. Frankfurt. 1810.
Holm, E. Danmark-Norges Historie, 1720-1814. Copenhagen. 1902.
LeusB, H. Gustav IH. In Gekronte Sanginiker. Berlin. 1906.
Malmstrom, C. G. Sveriges politiska historia. Stockholm. 1893-1901.
Odhner, C. T. Sveriges politiska historia under Gustaf III :s regering. Stockholm.
1886, etc.
Schartaus, J. Hemliga handlingar rorande till Sveriges historia efter Konung
Gustaf Ill:s antrade till regeringen. Stockholm. 1821.
Schinkel, B. von. Minnen ur Sveriges nyare historia. Stockholm. 1856-83.
Schuck, J. H. E. Gustaf IIL Stockholm. 1904.
Sveriges Historia. Vol. iv. Stockholm. 1877-81.
Tegne'r, E. G. M. Armfelt. Stockholm. 1883-7.
Toll, J. C, Count. Biograflsk teckning. Stockholm. 1849-60.
Wirse'n, C. D. af. Minne af Grefve J. G. Oxeustjerna. Stockholm. 1886.
(2) Domestic Policy.
Herrmann, B. Gustav III und die politischen Partieen Schwedens im xviii Jahr-
hundert. Leipzig. 1866.
Rosengren, J. Om O. Wallqvist sSsom biskop och eforus. Vesio. 1901.
Tengberg, N. A. Konung Gustaf III:s forsta regerungstid. Lund. 1871.
Tham, W. Konung Gustaf III och Riketsstander. Stockholm. 1866.
Wallqvist, O. Minnen och bref. Stockholm. 1878.
Bibliography. 963
(3) Foreign Policy.
Armaillej M. C. A. de. La Comtesse d'Bgmont d'apres ses lettres in^dites a
Gustave III. (1771-3.) Paris. 1890.
Bonneville de Marsangy, L. Le Comte de Vergennes, son ambassade en Suede.
(1771-4.) Paris. 1898.
BrogliOj J. V. A., Duo de. Le Secret du Roi. Vol. ii. Paris. 1878.
Gregorevich, N. I. Chancellor Prince A. Bezborodko. St Petersburg. 1879-81.
{In Russian.)
Hjelt, A. J. Sveriges stallning till Udlandet efter 1772. Helsingfors. 1887.
Koersner, P. V. Gustaf III:s yttre politik under tiden narmast fore ryska Krigens
utbrottftj 1786-9. Falun. 1882.
Nielsen, Y. Gustaf den III :s norske Politik. Christiania. 1877.
Odhner, C. T. Minne af Grefve U. Scheffer. Stockholm. 1892.
(4) The Russian and Banish Wars. '
Backstrom, P. Svenska flottans historia. Stockholm. 1884.
Barrowj J. Life and correspondence of Sir W. S. Smith. London. 1848.
Grot, Y. K. Catherine II and Gustavus III. St Petersburg. 1884. (In Russian.)
Kynynmond, E. E. E. E. M., Countess of Minto. Memoirs of the Right Hon. Hugh
Elliot. Edinburgh. 1868.
Markell, J. Anteckningar rqrande Finska Arm&ns Krigshistoria. Stockholm.
1870.
Ofversigt af svenska krigens historia. Stockholm. 1890.
Odhner, C. T. Razumovski's not den 18 Juin 1788. Stockholm. 1897.
(6) The French Revolution.
Akeson, N. Gustaf III:s fdrhallanden till Franska Revolutionen. Limd, 1885.
Cruewell, G. A. Die Beziehungen Gustafs III zur Konigin Marie Antoinette von
Frankreich. Berlin. 1897.
Daudet, E. Histoire de I'fimigration. Vol. in. Goblentz. Paris. 1890.
Fersen, Count Hans A. von. Le Comte de Fersen et la Cour de France. Paris.
1877-8. English edition. London. 1902.
Flach, F. F. Grefve Hans Axel von Fersen. Stockholm. 1896.
Gei&oy, M. A. Gustave III et la Cour de France. Paris. 1867.
Odhner, C. T. Gustaf III och Katarina II efter Freden i Varala. Stockholm.
1895.
Reumont, A. von. Konig Gustav III in Aachen... 1791. Aix. 1880.
Schartau, J. Bidrag till Konung Gustaf III:s historia inneh411ande hans tillarnade
Expedition piot Frankrike, J792. Stockholm. 1826.
(6) The Gefie. Diet and the assassination.
Ahngrist, J. A. Riksdagen i Gefle, 1792. Upsala. 1895.
Bain R. N. Assassination of Gustavus III of Sweden. Eng. Hist. Review.
II, 543.
Gustavus III. Historia om Konung Gustafs mord. Stockholm. 1843.
An account of the death of the late King of Svreden. London. 1792.
Historiska anteckningar om de aristokratiska stamplingarne i Sverige under
Konung GusUf III, samt om dennes olycklige dodssatt. Stockholm. 1821.
Lehndorf-Bandels, A. A. L. Gustavs Tod. Hamburg. 1793.
Nervo, Baron G. de. Gustave III et Anckarstrom. Paris. 1876.
61—2
964
CHAPTER XXIII.
POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY FROM HOBBES TO BURKE.
From the mass of pamphlets, sermons, fly-sheets, etc., especially in the British
Museum. (King's Tracts, Thomason Collection) and in the Bodleian Library
(Ashmole, bartholomew, Godwin, Gough, Lincoln, Rawliuson, Wood and other
Collections), the few that follow are here singled out as presenting some distinctive
features*. See R. Watt, Bibliotheca Britaunica, for list and authors of many
pamphlets.
A briefe discourse... on government. 1648. [Thorough good sense.]
Acton, Lord. Historical Essays and Studies. Edited by J. N. Figgis and R. V,
liiurence. 1907.
The History of Freedom, and other Essays. Edited by J. N. Figgis and
R. V. Laurence. 1907.
Alarm, a, to Corporations. 1659.
Anabaptists' Petition, the, from Maidstone gaol. 1660.
Austin, J. Jurisprudence. Ed. R. Campbell. 1885.
A winding sheet for the Good Old Cause. 1639.
A word to the purpose. 1659. [Anticipating Locke.]
Bacon, N. An Historical Discovery of the Uniformity of the Government of
England. 1647. 6th edn. 1760. [Largely by Selden.]
Bagshaw, E. De monarchia absoluta. 1659. [An attack on Hobbes, etc. ; a typical
College Essay.]
Baron, R. A cordial for low spirits. 1761. [Re-edited by a republican.]
The pillars of priestcraft shaken. 1762.
Berkeley, G., Bishop of Cloyne. A discourse of passive obedience. 1709.
Blackburne, R. Thomas Hobbes vita, et Auctarium. [Carolopoli.] 1681.
Blakey, R. History of political literature. 1856.
Bluntschli, J. C. Geschichte der Politik. Munich. 1867.
Bolingbroke, Viscount. Miscellaneous Works. 4 vols. Edinburgh. 1773. (Esp.
Letter to Windham, Dissertation on Parties, Letter on History, Patriot King.)
Borgeaud, E. The rise of modern democracy. Transl. by Mrs Birkbeck Hill, 1894.
Bosanquet, B. The philosophical theory of the State. 1899.
firamhaU, J. A warning to the church of England. 1706.
Castigations of Mi: Hobbes. 1658.
British Museum Subject Catalogue. Article : Government. 1886-1906.
Brown, Jethro. Aiistinian Theory of Law. 1906.
Bryce, J. Studies in History and Jurisprudence. Oxford, 1901.
Buhle, J. G. Histoire de la philosophie moderne. Translated by A. J. L. Jourdan.
6 vols, Paris. 1816.
* The place of publication is London, where not otherwise noted.
Bibliography. 965
Burnetj G., Bishop of Salisbury. An ennuiry into the measure of submission^ etc. 1688.
Papers. 1689.
A history of his own time. 1815.
Butler, Samuel. Hudibras. Ed. Z. Grey. 2 vols. 1744.
Censure, the, of the Rota upon Mr Milton's book. [A typical Royalist squib.] 1660.
Chadwick, W. Life and times of D. Defoe. 1869. [Vigorous, violent, very useful.]
Christus Dei the Lord's Anointed. 1643.
Clapham, J. Obedience to magistrates. 1683.
Clarendon, Earl of. A brief view of errors in Mr Hobbes' Leviathan. Oxford. 1676.
Clark, E. C. Practical jurisprudence. 1883.
Clodius, J. De rations status. 1659.
Collins, J. Churton. Bolingbroke and Voltaire. 1886.
Covel, W. A declaration unto the Parliament. 1669. [An extraordinary manifesto
from a Leveller.]
Croftow, Z. The fastening of Peter's fetters or the Covenant vindicated. 1660.
Davenant, C. True picture of a modern Whig. 6th edn. 1701.
Defoe, D. Works. Ed. W. Hazlitt. Especially, The Original Power of the People
1701, Shortest Way with Dissenters 1702, The Review, etc. 1704-13. 1843.
Dryden, John. Poetical Works. Ed. G. Saintsbury. Vols, ix and x. Edinburgh
1844-5.
Du Moulin, Peter. Regii Sanguinis Clamor. With dedicatory epistle by A. Moras
(Moir). The Hague. 1662.
Dunning, W. A. A history of political theories (Columbia series). New York. 1905.
Eachard, J. Mr Hobbes' State of Nature considered. Two dialogues. 1672-4.
England's monarchy, etc. 1660. [Eulogy of British constitution.]
Feak, C. Mr Tillinghast's eight last sermons. The banner of Truth displayed.
1647. [Manifestoes of the Fifth Monarchy men.]
Figgis, J. N. The divine right of Kings. Cambridge. 1896.
Filmer, R. The freeholder's grand inquest. 1647. Republished 1679.
Observations concerning the original of government. 1662. Republished
1679.
Patriarcha. Republished 1679.
The power of Kings. 1648. Republished 1679.
Firth, C. H. The Clarke Papers. Camden Soo. Publ. 2 vols. 1891-4.
Ford, S. The loyal subject's indignation. 1660. [A good royalist argument.]
Forset, E. A comparative discourse of bodies natural and politique. 1606. [The
source of much of Hobbes.]
Gardiner, S. R. Constitutional documents. Oxford. 1889.
Gee, F. The right and original of the civil magistrate. 1658. [Able and
thoughtful.]
Gierke, O. Althusius. Breslau. 1903.
Gooch, G. P. English democratic ideas in the seventeenth century. Cambridge. 1898.
Graham, W. English Political Philosophy. 1899.
Green, T. H. Principles of Political Obligation. 1885.
G. S. The dignity of kingship asserted, against J. M(ilton). 1660.
Hall, J. Treatise against Monarchy. 1651, [Able and interesting : the author
died at 29.]
Hallam, H. Constitutional History of England. 8th edn. 3 vols. 1866.
Harrington, J. The art of lawgiving. 1659. [A popular abstract of the Oceana.]
The Rota, or Model of a free state. 1660. [The last manifesto of his
party in February, 1660.]
Works. Ed. J. Toland. 2nd edn. 1737.
Herriott, F. I. Temple on Government. (Philadelphia. 1893?)
Heylin, P. The stumbling-block of rebellion. 1668.
966 Political Philosophy from Hobhes to Burke.
Heylin, P. Aerius redivivus. [A bitter anti-Puritan history.] 1670-2.
Hoadly, B. Works. 1773. [Especially. The original of Civil Government, 1709,
and the sermon on the Kingdom of Christ, I7l7.]
Hobbes, T. Works. Ed. W. Molesworth. 11 vols. 1839-45.
Howes, J. Sermon against Atheists, Independents, Presbyterians, Anabaptists.
[1670 ?]
Hudson, M. The Divine Right of Government. 1647.
Hume, D. Essays. Ed. T. H. Green and T. H. Grose. 1875.
Hunton, P. Treatise on Monarchy. 1643. Reprinted 1689.
Janet, P. Histoire de la Science politique. Paris. 1887.
J. H. A briefe admonition, etc. 1669.
Johnson, S. Julian the Apostate. 1686.
League Illegal, the, or the Covenant examined. 1657.
Lee, Wm. Defoe. 1869.
Leslie, C. A view of the times 1702-9. (The Rehearsal.) 6 vols. 2nd edn.
1750.
Cassandra (But I hope not). 1704. 2nd edn. 1750.
L'Estrangei ^- Apology. 1660. [A racy account of events 1658-60, and an
answer to a number of contemporary pamphlets.]
Letter, a, on Dr Lake. 1690. [Acute review of Passive Obedience.]
Lilburne, J. England's new chains. 1649.
Legall Liberties of the People. 1649.
Agreement of the People. 1649 [i.e. 1650].
Locke, J. Works. Ed. Bp Law. 1777.
Loewe, J. H. Bramhall's Verhaltniss zu Hobbes. Abhandl. k. bohm. Gesellsch.
Prag, VII, 1. 4. Prague. 1885-6.
Long, T. The impiety of an absolute toleration. 1662.
Lowde, J. Reasonableness of the Christian Religion. 1684.
Lucy, W. Observations on Mr Hobbes his Leviathan. 1663.
Mackenzie, Sir G. Jus Regium. 1684. [Scottish point of view.]
Maine, H. Ancient Law. Ed. Sir F. Pollock. 1906. [Criticism of Hobbes and
Locke.]
Early Institutions. Ed. Sir F. Pollock. 1875. [Criticism ofHobbes and Locke.]
Marvell, A. The Rehearsal transprosed. 1672. [Witty attack on Bp Parker.]
Masson, D. Milton's Life and Times. 6 vols. Cambridge. 1859-94.
Mayer, K. T. Hobbes. Freiburg i. B. 1884.
Michel, H. L'Idee de TJ^tat. Paris. 1896. [Reaction froln Laissez-faire.]
Milton, J. Especially tenure of Kings. 1649. Treatise of Civil Power. 1669.
Minto, W. Daniel Defoe. (English Men of Letters.) 1879.
Miserere cleri. 1668. [Assize sermon at Exeter; a curious picture of clergy.]
Nalson, J. On monarchy. 1678.
Foxes and Firebrands. 2 parts. 1680-2. ["Quakers are Friars disguised."]
The common interest of king and people. 1678.
Needham, M. Excellencie of a free state. 1656.
Neville, H. Plato redivivus. 2nd edn. 1681. 4th edn. 1763.
Old English Puritan, the. 1660. [A good defence.]
Parker, S. Ecclesiastical Polity. 1670.
A defence of the Ecclesiastical Polity. 1671.
History of his own time. 1682.
Religion and loyalty. 1684. [Climax of Non-resistance.]
Perry, G. Student's Church History. 1884.
Pollock, Sir F. History of the Science of Politics. 1890.
Prynne, W. The sword of Christian magistracy. 1647.
"The Good Old Cause anatomised. 1659.
Bibliography. 967
Ranke, L. von. Sammtliche Werke. Vol. xxiv. Leipzig. 1872. [On division
of functions.]
Rebel's plea, the, or Mr Baxter's judgment. 1660. [A vigorous attack.]
Regicides, the dying speeches of the. [1660!']
Ritchie, D. G. Natural Rights. 1895.
Rively, B. A sermon against Fifth Monarchists, English Mamelukes, Scotch
Enthusiasts. 1679.
Sadler, J. Olbia the new island. 1660.
Rights of the kingdom. 1649. [Anti-royalist argument from law and history.]
Salmond, J. W. Jurisprudence. 1902.
Sancroft, Abp. W. Modern policies taken from Machiavel, etc. 1652.
Savile, G., Ld Halifax. The character of a trimmer (in Miscellanies). 1699-1700.
Seasonable reflections on. ..Passive Obedience. 1690. [Good sense well expressed.]
Selden, W. Table Talk. Oxford. 1892. [Often reprinted.]
Seller, A. A history of passive obedience. 1689.
Sexby, E. Killing no murder. [1657 ?]
Sherlock, T. Works. 1730. [Especially Answer to Hoadley, etc. 1718.]
Sichel, W. Bolingbroke and his times, and The sequel. 1901.
Sidgwick, H. Elements of Politics. 1891.
Sidney, A. Works. Ed. J. Robertson. 1772.
Sidney redivivus. 1689.
South, R. Peculiar care of providence for kings. 1676.
Sprigge, W. A modest plea for an equal Commonwealth. 1659. [A vigorous
Independent pamphlet.]
Stephen, Sir Leslie. Hobbes. (English Men of Letters.) 1904.
English Thought in the eighteenth century. 2 vols. 1876.
Stillingfleet, Bp E. WorkSj etc. Ed. R. Bentley. 1707-10. [Especially the Irenicon
of 1669.]
Stubbe, H. An essay in defence of the Good Old Cause. 1659. [A witty defence
of democracy against Baxter.]
A letter to an officer, etc. 1669.
Swift, J. Works. 1762-4.
Taylor, Jeremy. A liberty of prophecying. 1657.
Temple, Sir W. Essay on Government. 1672.
[Tenison, T.] The creed of Mr Hobbes examined. 2nd edn. 1672. [Lively and
graphic]
Tomkins, A. The rebels' plea. 1660. [An attack on Baxter, and anticipation of
Locke.]
Tonnies, F. Hobbes, Leben u. Lehre. Breslau. 1896.
Trenchard, J. and Gordon, T. A collection of tracts. 1761. [Whig tracts, 1697-
1730.]
Tucker, J. A treatise on Locke, etc. 1781.
Tyrrell, J. Patriarcha non monarcha. 1681. [The copy in the Bodleian Library
has copious notes by the author.]
Votiva Tabula. 1660. [A sermon on Barebone's Parliament.]
Warburton, W. Works. 1811. [Especially Alliance between Church and State,
1736.]
Ware, J. The priviledges of the people. 1648.
Whewell, W. History of moral philosophy. Cambridge. 1862.
Williams, Roger. The bloody tenent of persecution. 1644.
Wren, M. Considerations on Mr H.'s Oceana. 1667.
Monarchy asserted. 1660. [Shrewd and caustic criticism of Harrington.]
Wright, A. Five sermons in five different ways. 1656. [Against "these God-
Almighties of the pulpit."]
963
CHAPTER XXIV.
THE ROMANTIC MOVEMENT IN EUROPEAN
LITERATURE,
I. GENERAL LITERARY HISTORY AND CRITICISM.
Hettner^ H. Litteraturgeschichte des achtzehnten Jahrhunderts. 6 vols. 4th edn.
Brunswick. 1893-4.
Periods of European Literature. Ed. G. Saintsbury. Vol. ix. The Mid-eighteenth
century. By J. H. Miller. Vol. x. The Romantic Revolt. By C. E. Vaughan,
Edinburgh. 1902-7.
Sainte-Beuve, C. A. Causeries du Lundi. Vols. i-xv. Paris. 1857-62.
/See also : Dictionary of National Biography. London. 1885-1901 ; Biographie
I Universelle. Paris. 1811-62; Nouvelle Biographie Gene'rale. Paris. 1853-66;
AUgemeine Deutsche Biographie. Leipzig. 1875-1906.
IL LITERATURES OP PARTICULAR COUNTRIES.
A. England.
(1) General and Collective History and Criticism.
Chambers' Encyclopsedia of English Literature. Ed. D. Patrick. Vols, n and m.
London. 1903.
Courthope, W. J, History of English Poetry. Vol. v. London. 1903.
English Men of Letters. Burke, J. Morley ; Fanny Burney, A. Dobson ; Coleridge,
H. D. Traill ; Cowper, Goldwin Smith ; Crabbe, A. Ainger ; Maria Edgeworth,
E. Lawless; Fielding, A. Dobson; Gibbon, J. C. Morison; Gray, E. Gosse;
Johnson, L. Stephen; Lamb, A. Ainger; Richardson, A. Dobson; Scott,
R. H. Button ; Southey, E. Dowden ; Sterne, H. D. Traill ; James Thomson,
G. C. Macaulay; Wordsworth, F. W. H. Myers. London. 1878, etc.
Handbooks of English Literature : T. Seccombe, The Age of Johnson ; C. H. Herford,
The Age of Wordsworth. London. 1897-1900.
Stephen, Sir L. Hours in a Library. 3 vols. London. 1892.
English Literature and Society in the Eighteenth Century. London. 1904.
Taine, H. Histoire de la Litte'rature anglaise. Vol. iv. Paris. 1873.
(2) Particular Wnters.
(fl) Editions of Works.
Blake, W. Works Poetic, Symbolic, and Critical. Edd. E. J. Ellis and W. B. Yeats.
3 vols. London. 1893.
Poetical Works. Ed. J. Sampson. Oxford. 1906.
Burns, R, The poetry of. Edd. W. E. Henley and T. F. Henderson. 4 vols.
Edinburgh. 1896-7.
Coleridge, S. T. Poetical Works. Ed. J. D. Campbell. London. 1893.
Letters. Ed. E. H. Coleridge. 2 vols. London. 1896.
Anima Poetae. Ed. E. H. Coleridge. London. 1895.
LUlo, G. The London Merchant and Fatal Curiosity. With introd. by A. W. Ward.
(Belles-Lettres Series.) Boston and London. 1906.
Richardson, Samuel. Works. With pref. chapter by Sir L. Stephen. 12 vols.
London. 1883.
Scott, Sir W. Miscellaneous Prose Works. 28 vols. Edinburgh. 1837-40.
Bibliography. 969
Scott, Sir W. Poetical Works. Ed. J. G. Lockliart. 12 vols. Edinburgh. 1833-4.
Waverley Novels. 25 vols. Edinburgh, 1870-1.
Wordsworth, W. Poetical Works. Ed. J. Morley. London. 1888.
Prose Works. Ed. A, B. Grosart. 3 vols. London. 1876.
(6) Biography and Criticism.
Blake, W.— Berger, P. Poitiers. 1907.
Life, by A. Gilchrist. 2vols. Loudon. 1863. [Vol. n: Selections by D.G.Rossetti.]
Swinburne, A. C. London. 1868.
Burns, R. — Angellier, A. 2 vols. Paris. 1893.
Coleridge, S. T. — Brandl, A. S. T. Coleridge und die englische Romantik. Berlin.
1886. Engl, transl. London. 1887.
Cowper, W. — Life and Letters by R. Southey. 7 vols. London. 1835-6.
Johnson, S. Lives of the Poets. Ed. G. Birkbeck Hill. 3 vols. Oxford. 1905.
Boswell, J. Life of Johnson. Ed. G. Birkbeck Hill. 6 vols. Oxford. 1887.
Scott, Sir W.— Lockhart, J. G. Life of Scott. 7 vols. Edinburgh, 1837.
Wordsworth, W. — Legouis, E. La jeunesse de Wordsworth. Paris. 1896. Engl.
transl. London. 1897.
Raleigh, W London. 1903.
Dorothy. Journals. Ed. W, Knight. London. 1897.
B. France.
(1) History and Criticism, General and Collective.
Brunetiere, F. ^fitudes critiques. 8 vols. Paris. 1902-7.
Caro, E. M. La fin du 18™ siecle. 2 vols. Paris. 1881.
Faguet, E. Dix-huitieme Siecle. Paris. 1890.
JuUeville, Petit de (Editor). Histoire de la langue et de la litterature fran9aise.
Vols. VI, VII. Paris. 1898-9.
Jnsserand, J. J. Shakespeare en France sous I'ancien regime. Paris. 1898.
Engl. Tr. London. 1899.
Sainte-Beuve, C. A. Portraits de Femmes. Paris. 1876.
Portraits litteraires. 3 vols. Paris. 1862-4.
(2) Particular Writers.
(o) Editions of Works.
Chateaubriand, F. R. de. M^moires d'Outre-tombe. 12 vols. Paris. 1849-60.
Diderot, D. (Euvres completes. 20 vols. Paris. 1875-7.
Grimm, Baron F. M. von. Correspondance litteraire. 17 vols. Paris. 1813-4.
Rousseau, J. J. (Euvres completes. Ed. G. Streckeisen-Moulton. 8 vols. Paris. 1866-7.
(Euvres et Correspondance inedites. Paris. 1861.
Voltaire, F. M. A. de. (Euvres completes. 70 vols. Kehl. 1785-9.
(6) Biography and Criticism.
Chenier, A. — Becq de Fouquieres, L. Lettres critiques sur la vie, les oeuvres, les
manuscrits de A. Chenier. Paris, 1881.
Diderot, D. — Morley, John (Viscount Morley). Diderot and the Encyclopaedists.
2 vols. London. 1891.
Reinach, J. Diderot. Paris. 1894.
Rousseau, J. J. — Epinay, Madame de. Memoires. 3 vols. Paris. 1818.
Macdonald, F. Jean-Jacques Rousseau. 2 vols. London. 1906. [Designed
to destroy the credit of the above. If the case has been established, the Life
of Rousseau, from 1766, must be re-written.]
. Morley, John (Viscount Morley), Rousseau, 2 vols. London. 1873.
Musset-Pathay, V. D. (Euvres ine'dites de J. J. Rousseau. Paris. 1826.
Schmidt, Erich. Richardson, Rousseau und Goethe. Jena. 1875.
CH. XXIV.
970 The Romantic Movement in European Literature.
Rousseau, J. J. — Streckeisen-Moulton, 6. Rousseau, ses amis et ses ennemis.
Paris. 1865.
Texte, J. J. J. Rousseau et les origines du cosmopolitisme litter. Paris. 1895.
Voltaire, F. M. A. de. — Champion, E. Voltaire, etudes critiques. Paris. 1897.
Condorcet, M. J. Vie de Voltaire. London. 1791.
Desnoiresterres, G. Voltaire et la societe fran9aise au 18™" siecle. Paris.
1871-6.
Morley, John (Viscount Morley). Voltaire. London. 1874.
C. Gbbmany.
(1) General Bistory and Criticism.
Haym, R. Die romantische Schule. Berlin. 1870.
Hettner, H, Die romantische Schule in ihrem inneren Zusammenhang mit Goethe
und Schiller. Brunswick. 1850.
Robertson, J. M. History of German literature. London. 1892.
Sauer, R. Stiirmer und Dranger. 3 vols. Berlin and Stuttgart. 1883.
Scherer, W. Geschichte der deutschen Litteratur. 17th edn. Strassburg. 1894.
Schmidt, Julian. Geschichte des geistigen Lebens in Deutschland von Leibnitz bis
auf Lessing's Tod. 2 vols. Leipzig. 1862-4.
Gesch. der deutschen Litt. seit Lessing's Tod. 6th edn. 3 vols. Leipzig. 1866-7.
(2) Particular Writers.
(a) Editions of Works.
Goethe, J. W. von. Werke. Weimar edn. Part i. Vols. i-t. Weimar. 1887, etc.
Herder, J. G. von. Sammtliche Werke. Ed. B. Suphau. Vols, i-xxxiii. Berlin.
1877, etc.
Lessing, G. E. Sammtliche Schriften. Ed. K. Lachmann. 3rd edn, by F. Muncker.
Vols. i-xx. Berlin and Leipzig. 1886-1906. {In progress.)
Schiller, J. C. F. von. Sammtliche Werke. With Introductions by K. Goedeke.
16 vols. Stuttgart. 1893-4.
(6) Biography and Criticism.
Goethe, J. W. von. — Bernays, M. Der junge Goethe. 3 vols. Leipzig. 1875.
Bielschowsky, A. Goethe, sein Leben u. seine Werke. Munich. 1896-1904.
Lewes, G. H. Life of Goethe. 3rd edn. London. 1882.
Herder, J. G. von. — Haym, R. Herder nach seiuem Leben und seinen Werken
dargestellt. 2 vols. Berlin. 1877-85.
Lessing, G. E. — Fischer, Kuno. Lessing als Reformator der deutschen Litteratur.
Stuttgart. 1881.
Schiller, J. C. F. von.— Fischer, K. Schiller-Schriften. 2 vols. Heidelberg. 1891-2.
D. Other Countries.
Bruckner, A. Geschichte der russischen Litteratur. Leipzig. 1905.
Fitzmaurice-Kelly, J. History of Spanish Literature. London. 1898.
Hansen, P. lUustr. Dansk Litteratur-Historie. 2nd edn. 3 vols. Copenhagen. 1902.
Pypin, A. N. Russkoi Literatury. 2nd edn. 4 vols. St Petersburg. 1902-3.
and Spasovic, V. D. Geschichte der slavischen Litteraturen. German
transl. 3 vols. Leipzig. 1880.
Reinhardstoettner, R. von. Portugiesische Literaturgeschichte. (Sammlung
Goschen.) Leipzig. 1904.
Storia letteraria d' Italia scritta da una Societa di Professori. 10 vols. Milan.
1900-6.
Ten Brink, J. Geschiedenis der nederlandsche Letterkunde. Amsterdam. 1897.
Ticknor, G. History of Spanish literature. 6th edn. 3 vols. London. 1882.
971
CHKONOLOGICAL TABLE
OP
LEADING EVENTS MENTIONED IN TfflS VOLUME.
1525 Babar founds Moghnl Empire in India.
1651 Hobbes' Leviathan published.
1654 Final acquisition of Brazil by Poi-tugal.
1656 Harrington's Oceana published.
1657-1707 Reign of Aurungzeb in India.
1663 Renewal of Franco-Swiss alliance of 1602.
1668 Triple Alliance.
1680 Filmer's Patriarcha published.
1683 Siege of Vienna.
1689 Bill of Rights. Locke's On Toleration published.
1696 Frederick Augustus, Elector of Saxony, elected King Augustus II of Poland.
1701 June. Act of Settlement.
August. Grand Alliance completed.
September. Death of James II. Louis XIV recognises "James III."
1702 March. Death of William III. Accession of Anne.
1703 Methuen Treaty between England and Portugal.
1704 Act of Security (Scotland) receives Royal Assent.
1707 May. Act of Union of England and Scotland comes into force.
1710 South Sea Company established.
1712 Toleration Act (Scotland). Patronage restored in Scotland.
Second VUmergen War iu Switzerland.
1713 February. Accession of Frederick William I of Prussia.
Peace of Utrecht.
1714 June. Death of Electress Sophia.
August. Death of Anne. Accession of George I.
Marriage of Philip V with Elisabeth Farnese.
1715 April. Third Dutch Barrier Treaty signed.
September. Death of Louis XIV. Accession of Louis XV. Regency of
Orleans. Jacobite rising in Scotland.
December. Commercial Treaty between Spain and Great Britain.
Bremen and Verden ceded to Hanover by Denmark.
1716 February. Commercial Treaty between Great Britain and the Dutch.
May. Law founds his Bank iu France.
June. Treaty of Westminster.
Septennial Act. Turkish conquest of Morea.
1717 January. Triple Alliance. Breach between Great Britain and Sweden.
August. Louisiana Company founded by Law.
Alberoni conquers Sardinia.
Victory of Prince Eugene over the Turks at Belgrade,
Congress of Passarowitz meets.
1718 Quadruple Alliance.
972 Chronological Table.
1718 July. Peace of Passarowitz.
August. Spanish fleet destroyed off Cape Passaro by Byng.
„ Cellamare's plot discovered. f'ranco-British invasion of Spain.
November. Death of Charles XII.
December. Great Britain declares war on Spain.
1719 January. France declares war on Spain. First Treaty of Vienna.
November. Treaty of Stockholm.
December. Fall of Alberoni.
Act empowering English Parliament to legislate for Ireland.
1720 Spain, Denmark, and Poland accede to Quadruple Alliance.
Collapse of Law's System. Plague at Marseilles.
August. Height of South Sea mania.
Pragmatic Sanction recognised by Austrian Estates.
1721 March. Treaty of Madrid. Acceded to by Great Britain (June).
August. Peace of Nystad.
1722 Walpole First Lord of Treasury. "Atterbury's" plot.
1723 December. Death of Duke of Orleans.
1724 January. Abdication of Philip V,
„ Congress of Cambray meets.
April. First Vrapier's Letter.
August. Death of Don Luis. Philip V reascends Spanish throne.
1725 April. Treaty of Vienna.
September. Treaty of Herrenhausen.
„ Marriage of Louis XV with Maria Leszczynska.
November, Secret Austro-Spanish marriage treaty negotiated by Ripperda.
1726 Denmark and Sweden join Herrenhausen Alliance.
September. Hozier blockades Portobello.
October. Treaty of Wusterhausen.
Fleury First Minister of France. Foundation of Monte Video.
1727 February. Spain declares war against England.
May. Peace preliminaries signed at Paris.
First Indemnity Act for Nonconformists.
1728 March. Convention of the Pardo. Congress of Soissons meets (June).
1729 Methodist movement begins at Oxford.
September. Birth of the Dauphin.
November. Treaty of Seville. End of Ostend Company.
1730 May. Accession of Tsarina Anne.
Death of Frederick IV of Denmark. Accession of Christian VI.
1731 January. Spain denounces Treaty of Seville.
„ England and Holland guarantee Pragmatic Sanction.
„ Death of Antonio Farnese, Duke of Parma.
March. Treaty of Vienna. Acceded to by Spain (July).
1732 Don Carlos Duke of Parma.
1733 Second election of Stanislaus Leszczynski. Polish Succession War begins.
May. Spain attacks Austrian Italy. Battle of Bitonto.
September. Treaty of Turin.
November. Treaty of the Escurial (First Facte de FamiUe).
Walpole's Excise Act withdrawn. Molasses Act.
1735 January. S. Leszczynski abdicates. Augustus III recognised King of Poland.
Preliminaries of Vienna signed.
Don Carlos crowned King of the Two Sicilies.
Russo-Turkish War begins. Porteous riots in Edinburgh.
1737 Fall of Chauvelin.
1738-72 Strife of the Caps and Hats in Sweden.
1738 January. Convention of the Pardo.
CJironohgical Table. 973
1738 Third Treaty of Vienna.
1739 Vienna Treaty acceded to by Sardinia (February), Spain and Naples (June).
September. Peace of Belgrade. Peace of Constantinople.
October. War between Spain and Great Britain declared.
December. Vernon takes Portobello.
1740 May. Death of Frederick William I of Prussia. Accegsion of Frederick II.
October. Death of Tsarina Anne. Accession of Ivan VI.
„ Death of Charles VI. Austrian Succession War beg;iua.
December. Frederick II invades Silesia.
1741 April. Battle of Mollwitz. June. Treaty of Breslau.
July. Sweden declares war on Russia. Battle of Vilmanstrand.
October. Convention of Klein-Schnellendorf.
December. Frederick II invades Moravia. Accession of Tsarina Elizabeth.
Siege of Cartagena de las ludias.
1742 Fall of Walpole.
May. Battle of Chotusitz.
Austro-Spanish hostilities begin in Italy.
1743 January. Death of Fleury.
February. Battle of Campo Santo.
June. Preliminaries of Breslau. Battle of Dettingeo.
July. Peace of Berlin.
August. Peace of Abo.
October. Treaty of Fontainebleau (Second Facte de Famitle).
December. Belleisle's retreat from Prague.
1744 May. Union of Frankfort. Frederick II invades Bohemia
War between Great Britain and France declared.
1745 January. Death of Charles Albert of Bavaria.
March. Treaty of Fiissen.
May. Battle of Fontenoy.
June. Austro-Russian Alliance.
July. Jacobite rising.
December. Charles Edward retreats from Derby.
„ Battle of Kesselsdorf. Saxony accedes to Convention of Hanover.
Treaty of Dresden between Austria and Prussia.
1746 January-March. Sardinian alliance with France.
February, Marshal Saxe takes Brussels.
J, Death of Christian VI of Denmark, Accession of Frederick V.
April. Alliance of Denmark and France. Battle of Culloden.
June. Cape Breton taken by the British.
July. Death of Philip V of Spain. Accession of Ferdinand VI,
August. Battle of Roucoux.
September. Madras taken by the French.
1747 May. William IV proclaimed Stadholder.
July. Battle of Lauffeldt. Battle of Exilles.
1748 Bergen-op-Zoom taken by the French.
Treaties of Aix-la-Chapelle signed by France and Great Britain (April) and
by Spain (October).
1749 October. Treaty of Aquisgran.
„ Treaty of Madrid.
Dupleix secures French control of the Carnatic.
Bolingbroke's Idea qf a Patriot King published.
1750 Colonial Manufactures Prohibition Bill. Rousseau's first Ditcourt.
1751 Sieges of Trichinopoly and Arcot.
1752 June. Treaty of Aranjuez.
1754 Representatives of the English North American colonies meet at Albany^
974 Chronological Table.
1755 July. Braddock's disaster before Fort Duquesne.
September. Anglo-Russian Convention of St Petersburg (ratified Feb. 1756).
November. Earthquake of Lisbon. Newcastle-Fox Ministry.
1756 January. Convention of Westminster.
May. Treaty of Versailles. Minorca taken by French.
„ War declared by England against France.
June. Calcutta seized by Sir&j-ud-daula.
August. Frederick II invades Saxony. Battle of Lobositz.
December. Russia accedes to Treaty of Versailles.
Acadia cleared of French settlers. French take Oswego.
1757 Newcastle-Pitt Ministry.
Jan. -Feb. Clive takes Calcutta, Hooghly and Chauderuagore.
February. Austro-Russian Convention.
May. Second Treaty of Versailles.
June. Battle of Plassey.
Battles of Prague (May), Kolin (June), Hastenbeck (July), Gross-Jagerndorf
(August); Convention of Klosterzejgn (September); battles of Rossbach
and Breslau (November), Leuthen (December).
1758 April. First annual convention between Great Britain and Prussia.
June. Louisburg taken by British. Clive Governor of Bengal.
Battles of Zorndorf (August), Hochkirch (October).
November. Choiseul Foreign Minister of France.
1759 March-May. Third Treaty of Paris completed.
Battles of Kay, Minden and Quebec (July), Kunersdorf (August).
August. Death of Ferdinand VI of Spain. Accession of Charles III.
Jesuits expelled from Portugal and Brazil.
1760 Battle of Landshut (June). Fall of Glatz. Battle of Liegnitz (July).
October. Russian occupation of Berlin.
„ Death of George II. Accession of George III.
November. Battle of Torgau.
1761 Spanish invasion of Portugal.
August. Treaty of San Ildsfonso (Third Facte de Famille).
October. Fall of Pitt.
1762 January. War declared against Spain by Great Britain.
„ Death of Tsarina Elizabeth. Accession of Peter III.
May. Prussia makes peace with Russia and Sweden.
„ Spanish invasion of Portugal.
June. Russo-Prussian Alliance. Accession of Catharine II.
British capture of Martinique (February), Havana (June), Manila (October).
Battles of Wilhelmsthal (June), Freiberg (October).
November. Preliminaries of Fontainebleau signed.
Rousseau's Emile published.
1763 February. Peace of Hubertusburg. Peace of Paris.
April. Resignation of Bute. Proceedings against Wilkes begin.
First Whiteboy outbreaks in Ireland.
1764 September. Stanislaus Poniatowski elected King of Poland.
Jesuits expelled from France. Battle of Buxar.
1765 Clive's second governorship of Bengal begins.
March. Stamp Act.
August. Death of Emperor Francis I. Accession of Joseph II.
1766 Stamp Act repealed. Chatham-Grafton Ministry formed.
Lorraine annexed to France.
1767 Jesuits expelled from Spain,
Provisional Treaty of Exchange of Copenhagen,
1768 Purchase of Corsica from Genoa by France.
Chronological Table. 975
1768 Confederation of Bar. Russian invasion of Poland.
Turkey declares war on Russia.
Nullum Tempus Act.
1769 January. Letters of Junius begin.
February. Wilkes expelled from House of Commons.
August. Interview of Joseph II with Frederick II at Neisse.
1770 January. North's Ministry begins. Buvke's Thoughts onthe Present Discontents.
„ Spanish attack on English settlement in the Falkland Isles.
May. Marriage of the Dauphin Louis with Marie-Antoinette.
August. Destruction of Turkish fleet by Russians at Tchesmd.
December. Fall of Choiseul.
1771 January. Exile of the Parlement of Paris.
Death of Adolphus Frederick of Sweden. Accession of Gustavus III.
First Roman Catholic Relief Act (Ireland).
Russian occupation of the Crimea.
1772 February. Secret Treaty of St Petersburg.
August. First Partition of Poland.
Royal Marriage Act.
Coup d'Hat of Gustavus III in Sweden. Catastrophe of Struensee in Denmark.
Ministry of Guldberg begins.
1773 Alliance of France and Sweden.
August. Suppression of the Jesuit Order.
North's Regulating Act for India. Warren Hastings Governor-General.
Insurrection of Pugachoff in Russia.
1774 Boston Riot. Boston Port Act.
May. Louis XV succeeded by Louis XVI. Turgot Finance Minister (Aug.).
July. Battle of Shumla. Peace of Kutchuk-Kainardji.
1775 Skirmishes at Lexington (April), and Bunker Hill (June).
July. Spanish attack on Algiers.
1776 Spanish attack on Sacramento.
Prohibitory Act against American commerce.
American Declaration of Independence.
1777 February. Joseph I of Portugal succeeded by Maria I. Fall of Pombal.
June. Necker Director-General of French Finances.
December. Death of Elector Maximilian Joseph of Bavaria.
1778-84 War with Haidar Ali in India.
1778 February. Treaty of Paris between France and America.
March. Treaty of the Pardo between Spain and Portugal.
July. Bavarian Succession War begins.
September. Dutch-American Treaty of Amity and Commerce.
Savile's Roman Catholic Relief Act.
1779 May. Peace of Teschen.
June. Spain declares war on England. Siege of Gibraltar begins.
December. English restrictions on Irish trade abolished.
1780 January. Rodney relieves Gibraltar.
February. First Armed Neutrality mooted.
November. Death of Maria Theresa. Joseph II sole Emperor.
December. Great Britain declares war on the Dutch.
Austro-Russian Alliance against Turkey.
1781 Rodney takes Dutch West Indian Islands.
De Grasse takes Tobago and blockades Chesapeake Bay.
June. Joseph II issues Patent of Tolerance.
July. Battle of Porto Novo (July) ; battle of Dogger Bank (August).
October. Capitulation of Yorktown.
November. Joseph II abolishes serfdom.
976 Chronological Table.
1782 February. Minorca and West Indian Islands taken by French.
March. Pius VI visits Vienna. Peruvian rebellion against Spain suppressed.
April. Evacuation of the Barrier fortresses.
„ Rodney defeats de Grasse in the West Indies.
„ Grattan's Declaration of Rights. Irish legislative independence.
August-September. French victorious in the East Indies.
October. Howe relieves Gibraltar.
November. Preliminaries of Peace accepted by Great Britain and America.
1783 September. Peace of Versailles.
December. Fox' India Bill rejected by House of Lords. Fall of North.
1781-97 Ministry of Andreas Bernstorff in Denmark.
1784 January. Peace between Great Britain and the United States ratified.
Pitt's India Act.
1785 February. Return of Warren Hastings.
July. Formation of Furstenbund,
Sweden declares war on Russia. Naval battle off Hogland (July).
Denmark attacks Sweden.
November. Barrier Treaty of I7l6 abrogated by Treaty of Fontainebleau.
1786 August. Frederick II of Prussia succeeded by Frederick William II.
September. Commercial Treaty between Great Britain and France.
1787 Trial of Warren Hastings begins (ends 1795).
Disturbances in Austrian Netherlands.
Prussian troops invade Holland. Austria and Russia declare war on Turkey.
1788 AprQ. Anglo-Dutch defensive alliance.
July. Suedo-Russian War.
August. Anglo-Prussian defensive alliance of Berlin.
October. Last Polish (Four Years') Diet meets.
November. Convention of Uddevalla.
December. Death of Charles III of Spain. Accession of Charles IV.
„ Ochakoif taken by Russians.
1789 January. Regency debates.
Decemher. Republic declared in Belgium,
Insurrection threatened in Hungary.
Swedish Act of Union and Security.
1790 February. Emperor Joseph II succeeded by Leopold II.
June. Convention of Reichenbach.
July. Nootka Sound dispute between Great Britain and Spain settled.
August. Peace of Varala between Russia and Sweden.
Burke's Reflections on the French Revolution.
1791-2 Paine's Rights of Man published.
1791 Act to relieve Roman Catholics in England. (Ireland, 1792, Scotland, 1793.)
Quebec Government Act.
Formation of the London Corresponding Society.
May. Polish Constitution announced.
1792 Januai-y. Treaty of Jassy.
February. Tipu Sultan defeated at Seringapatam.
March. Death of Emperor Leopold II. Accession of Francis II.
„ Assassination of Gustavus III of Sweden.
April. France declares war on the Emperor. Fox' Libel Act.
1793 January. Execution of Louis XVI.
February. France declares war against Great Britain and Holland.
British conquests from French in India.
1796 Death of Tsarina Catharine II. Accession of Paul.
1797 Frederick William II of Prussia succeeded by Frederick William III.
1798 Proclamation of Helvetic Republic.
977
INDEX OF NAMES
Aalborg, port of, 737
Aar river, Charles of Lorraine at, 247
Aarau, Treaty of, 611; 613
Aargan, canton of, 613
Aarhuus, port of, 737
Abbas II, Shah of Persia, 518; 527
Aberdeen, Jacobites at, 98, 103, 116
Aberdeenshire, elections in, 93 ; 98
Abo, 314; Peace of, 761, 782
Abrantes, army at, 369
Acadia, inhabitants driven from, 337
Ach^, de, French naval officer, 547 sij.
Acton, John Emerich Edward Dalberg-
Actou, Lord, 85
Adams, John, President of the United
States of America, 461
Thomas, Major, defeats Mir Easim,
561; 662
Addison, Joseph, succeeded by Craggs, 30
Adige river, 153 ; crossed by the allies, 154
Adolphus Frederick, King of Sweden, 354 ;
741 sq.; 761 sqq.; death of, 766
Adomo, Botta, Austrian general, Begent in
Tuscany, 601 ; 608
Adriatic Sea, 241 ; Venice and, 605
ASrey, Comte de, French envoy at the
Hague, 343
Afghanistan, the Emperor Babar in, 508 sq. ;
510 sqq.. ; 517 ; Shah Jehan in, 518 ; in-
surrection in, 521 ; 524 ; physical features
of, 526 sqq.
Africa, 151 ; colonisation of, 184 ; the
slave trade in, 186 sqq.; the European
Powers in, 187 sqq.
African Association, 188
Company (English), 187 sq.; (French),
173
Afzal Ehan, general of the Bijapur army,
521
Agra, captured by B^bar, 509 ; 511 ;
Emperor Shah Jehitn proclaimed at, 517 ;
519 aq. ; 523 sqq.
Aguesseau, Henri de. Chancellor of France,
129 sqq. ; 162
Ahlden, Sophia Dorothea at, 3
Ahmad Shah Abdali, Afghan ruler, 524
AhmadaMd, captured, 576
C. M. H. VI.
Ahmednagar, kingdom of, 512 ; 515 ; Khan
Jehto in, 517 ; 618 ; 523
AiguiUon, Armand Vignerot - Duplessis -
Biohelieu, Due de, 595; Crovernor of
Britanny,366 ; Ministerof Foreign Affairs,
357 sg.
Ainali Eavak, Treaty of, 709
Aislabie, John, statesman, 41 ; 180 sq.
Aix, the plague at, 128
Aiz-la-Chapdle, 689 ; Gustavus III at,
783
Peace of , 117 ; 119 ; 243 ; 249 sq. ; 273 ;
319 ; 331 sq. ; 363 ; Frederick the Great
and, 398 ; and America, 411 ; and India,
537 sq. ; Charles HI and, 597 ; 608 ; and
Corsica, 609; 622; 640; 642
Ajmir, Sir Thomas Boe at, 516 ; 519
Akbar Shah, Moghul Emperor, 511 sq. ;
character of, 513 sqq.
Akerman, Bussian capture of, 673
Aland Isles, Conference at, 28; 34; 36
Albani, Alessandro, Cardinal, 587; 595
Giovanni Francesco. See Clement XI,
Pope
Albany, federation meeting at, 412
Albemarle, George Eeppel, third Earl of,
369; 426
George Monck, Duke of, 795 sq.
WiUiaiu Anne Eeppel, second Earl
of, 333
Alberoni, Giulio, Cardinal, Spanish states-
man, 25; 29 ; and Great Britain, 30 sq.;
and Sicily, 32 ; 83 sqq. ; and the Ja-
cobites, 104; and England, 122 sq. ; and
the Begent Orleans, 123 ; reforms by, ib. ;
foreign policy of, 124; fall of, 125; 126 ;
134 ; 136 ; 138 ; and Bipperd4, 139, 142
sq. ; 157 ; Elisabeth Farnese and, 166 ;
586 sq.
Albuquerque, Aranda winters at, 369
Aldobrandini, papal nuncio in Spain, 137
Alembert, Jean le Bond de, 698 ; 825
Alessandria, 160 ; siege of, 161, 246, 608
Alexander the Great, Asiatic conquests of,
506
I, Tsar, 681 ; 696
Alfieri, Count Yittorio, poet, 824
62
978
Index.
Algiers, Spain and, 374, 381 ; Venice and,
606 ; Denmark and, 745
All Verdi BChan, Naw^b of Bengal, 551
Allahabad, S24 ; 563 ; ceded to the Mara-
thas, 568 ; 569
AUion, de, French chargS d'affaires in Bussia,
BIS
Almeida, siege of, 369
Alsace, 123 ; 141 ; Austria and, 238 sqq. ;
623
Alsh, Loch, men-of-war in, 105
Althan, Count, 37
Alton, Bichard Alton, Count de, Anstrian
general, 651 sq.
Altona, port of, 737; 745
Alvite, Spanish success at, 369
Amalia, Princess of Prussia, 281
Amazon, Jesuit mission stations on, 386;
389 sq.
Amberg, French troops in, 232
Ambur, battle of, 539
Amelot de Chaillou, Jean-Jacques, French
statesman, 109 sq. ; 156 ; 159 ; 239
America, the European Powers in, 61 sqq.,
69; Wesley in, 82, 86 ; Whitefield in,
83 sq. ; 157 ; colonisation in, 183 sqq.,
189; 340; 344; Spanish successes in,
377; 383; Britishpolicy in,432sq., 436;
491 ; Ireland and the war in, 495 ; the
Jesuits in, 590 sq.
British [see also United States), 65 ;
351 ; 375 ; fiscal troubles in, 438 ; 439 ;
443; and the tea duty, 446; hostilities in,
447 ; Declaration of Independence in, 448
North, France and, 172, 299, 327,
331 ; French and English rivalry in, 332,
410 sqq. ; 352 ; Pitt's policy in, 414 sq. ;
withdrawal of France from, 422
South, the South Sea Company and,
177 sq., 181 ; 374 ; 471
Spanish, illicit trade with, 64 sq. ;
158 ; South Sea Company and, 177 sq. ;
343; 351; Jesuits expelled from, 372;
475
Amherst, JeSrey Amherst, Lord, Field-
marshal, 426
Amiens, Peace of, and Pondioherry, 549
Amsterdam, peace negotiations at, 28 ; 169 ;
and the American Congress, 448 sq.
Anckarstrom, Jakob Johan, assassinates
Gustavus III, 784
Ancona, and Mediterranean trade, 606
Andalusia, colonisation of, 383
Augria, admiral of the Maratha fleet, 531
Anhalt-Dessau, Prince Leopold of, 206 sq.;
210; 213; 215 sq.; 244
Prince Maurice of, 262; 268;
284; 286; 289
Anbalt-Zerbst, Prince Christian August of,
657
— : Princess Elizabeth of, 316;
657 sqq.
Princess Sophia Augusta Frede-
rica of. See Catharine II, Tsarina
Anjala, 778; 780; confederation of, 782
Anjou, scarcity in, 162
Anna, Duchess of Bavaria, 229
— — Leopoldovna. See Brunswick-Wolf en-
biittel. Princess of
Petrovua. See Holstein-Gottorp,
Duchess of
Anne, Queen of Great Britain, 6; and the
succession, 8, 10 sqq. ; illness of, 15 ;
death of, 17 sq. ; and the Scottish peers,
93; and the Union, 96; 97; 815 sq.
Tsarina, 195; and Poland, 196 sq.;
reign of, 301 sqq. ; 312 sq. ; 665; 672;
760; death of, 228, 309
Ansbach, margravate of, 633; 704
Anson, George, Lord Anson, 75 ; 248; 250;
First Lord of the Admiralty, 419 ; 424 ;
death of, 427
Autibes, the Young Pretender at, 110; ISO;
159 sq.
Antigua, 454
Antilles, British successes in, 421
Antonovich, Ivan, claimant to the Bnssian
throne, 660; 680
Antrim, the Steelboys in, 491
Antwerp, siege of, 246; 247; 641; and the
navigation of the Scheldt, 642 ; 644 sqq. ;
disturbances in, 651
Anwar-ud-din, Nawab of the Carnatio, 539
Apostolicum Pascendi, Bull of Clement XIII,
593
Appleby, Jacobite force at, 101
Aprakin, Stephen, Count, Field-marshal,
Bussian Commander-in-chief, 264; 266;
277; 322
Apsley, Lord. See Bathurst, second Earl
Aquaviva, Cardinal, Spanish protector at
the Vatican, 110
Aquileia, patriarchate of, 606
Aquisgran, Treaty of, 363 ; 366
Arabian Sea, pirates in, 531
Aragon, 136 ; disaffection in, 145 ; canal of,
383
Aranda, Don Pedro Abarca y Bolea, Count
of, Spanish statesman, 351 ; 369; 371 eqq.;
and peace negotiations, 380 ; 382 ; 592
Aranjuez, the Spanish Court at, 166;
Treaty of, 363; 371; 383; League of, 608
Arbroath, the Duke of Argyll at, 103 sq.
Arbuthnot, Marriot, Admiral, 453
Aroo, Duke of, 166
Arijon, Jean-Claude-EUonore le Michaud,
Chevalier de, 379 sq.
Aroot, seized by CUve, 541; 543; 576
Ardoch, Jacobite force at, 100
Argenson, Marc-Pierre, Count de, French
Minister of War, 334; 338; 348
Marc-Ben^ de, French statesman, 129
Bene-Louis, Marquis de, French
Foreign Minister, 110; 113; 160 sq.;
243 sqq. ; fall of, 247; 329; and Bene-
dict XIV, 591
Argyll, Archibald Campbell, third Duke of
(Earl of Islay), 99
John Campbell, second Duke of, 96 ;
and the Earl of Mar's rising, 90 sq., 102
Index.
979
Aries, the plagae at, 128
Armagh, the Oakboys' rising near, 490
Armenia, geographical situation of, 628
Arm^nonville, Joseph- J. -B. Fleuriau de,
French Keeper of the Seals, 162
Armfelt, Gustaf Maurice, Swedish aiatea-
man, 778
Arnau, Austrian position at, 706
Ami, Olive at, 641; 577
Arnold, water-miller in the Neumark, 714
Artois, Count de, 656
AschaSenburg, "Pragmatic Army" at, 238
Ashbumhain, John Ashburnham, second
Earl of, 428
Ashburton, John Dunning, Lord, as So-
licitor-general, 439 ; 442 ; 455 ; 459
Asiatic Company of Denmark, 738
Aaiento, the, 25 ; England and, 64 sqq. ;
157; 178; 181; 363
Assiette, Col de, Belleisle's march by, 245 ;
362
Asti, 161; French defeat at, 245
Aston, Sir Bichard, Irish Chief Justice, 490
Atholl, John Murray, first Duke of, 92
Atouguia, Count of, executed, 386
Atterbury, Francis, Bishop of Bochester, 44
Auchterarder, Jacobite force at, 100 ; 102
Auckland, William Eden, Lord, 471
Augsburg, proposed Congress at, 343
Augusta, Princess of Wales, 417 ; 423 ; 434
Augustus II, King of Poland (Frederick
Augustus I, Elector of Saxony), 35 sq. ;
151 ; 156 ; crowned, 191 ; and Lithuania,
192; 193 sq.; 198; and the Pragmatic
Sanction, 202; 239; 303; 665; death of,
166
m, King of Poland (Frederick
Augustus II, Elector of Saxony), 193 ;
195 sqq. ; marriage of, 201 ; and the
Austrian Succession, 228 sq., 231 sq.;
242 ; and the Convention of Hanover,
244; Frederick the Great and, 251, 254
sq., 266; 303; 310; 346; 665 sq. ; 703;
and the Peace of Tesohen, 707 ; death of,
200, 353, 628
Auras, Bussian troops at, 294; 299
Aurungabad, M&lik Ambar at, 515
Anrungzeb, Moghul Emperor, 518 sqq. ;
and the Marathas, 521 sq. ; death of,
523; 532
AuBserrhoden, 625
Aussig, Charles of Lorraine at, 244; 257
Austen, Jane, 833
Austria, the War of the Austrian Succes-
sion, Chapter VIII ; and the Seven Tears'
War, Chapter IS. passim; and the "Be-
versal of Alliances," Chapter XI paiiim ;
under Joseph II, Chapter XTIII ; Prussia
and, Chapter XX patsim ; 21 ; and Great
Britain, 22 sq. ; and Sardinia, 29 ; and
the Quadruple Alliance, 30 sq. ; and the
Peace of Passarowitz, 32 ; and the
Vienna Treaties, 33, 57 sq. ; 35 ; 39 ; and
Spain, 58 sq., 138, 140 sqq. ; 147 ; 149 ;
153 ; Fleury and, 156 ; 161 ; and Poland,
193, 195, 199 sq., 303, 616, 665, 667 sqq. ;
army of, 213; 218; and the Peace of
Aix-la-Chapelle, 249 ; 252 sq. ; 301 ; and
the EusBO-Turkish War, 307 ; 308; 310;
BuBsia and, 315 sqq.; 320 sq. ; the Seven
Tears' War and, 323 sqq. ; and Charles III
of Spain, 366, 597 ; 393 ; and European
alliances, 398 sq. ; alliance of, with France,
400 sq.; 428; the Papacy and, 586 sq.,
691, 594, 596 ; 601 ; Venice and, 605 ;
and Genoa, 608 ; and Corsica, 609 ; and
Switzerland, 617, 622 sq. ; Catharine II
and, 663 ; and Bussia, 674 sqq. ; ajid
Denmark, 741
Auteil, de, French officer in India, 541
Aveiro, Duke of, executed, 386
Avignon, the Old Pretender at, 27, 104 ;
128 ; 594 ; restored to the Papacy, 595
Avonmore, Barry Telverton, first Viscount,
as Irish Attorney-general, 602
Axiake. See Ochakofi
Azoff, Crimean fortress, 305 sqq. ; acquired
by Bussia, 674
Azores, British convoys captured at, 377
B&bar, Zahirruddin Mahmud, Moghul
Emperor, 507 ; career of, 508 sqq.; death
of, 510; 614; 524
, Bacon, Francis, Viscount St Albans, 793 ;
803
Badajoz, royal wedding at, 166
Badakshan, province of, 518
Baden (in Aargau), Treaty of (1714), 614
Baden-Baden, Lewis Wilham, Margrave of,
191
Badeu-Durlach, Prince of, 289 sq.
Badenoch, Jacobites at, 103, 117
Barenklau, Johann Leopold, Baron zu
Schonreith, Austrian Field-marshal, 233 :
236
Bagchaserai, 305 ; captured by the Cossacks,
306
Bage, Bobert, novelist, 836
Bahidur, King of Guzerat, 510
Shah, Moghul Emperor, 523 ; 531
Bahamas, the, 184 ; 380 ; rehnquished by
Spain, 464
Bahia (San Salvador), 184 ; 389 sq.
BaiUie, William, Indian officer, defeated
by Haidar Ali, 576
Bairam Khan, Moghul general, 512
Baireuth, margravate of, 633
Frederick the Great and, 704
Margravine Wilhelmina of, 19 ; 210 :
253
Baji Bao I, Peshwa, 631 sq.
Baku, evacuated by Bussia, 304
Balkh, province of, 518
Balmerinoch, Arthur Elphinstone, Lord,
Jacobite, 114; 117
Baltic Sea, 24 ; 28 ; British fleet in, 24, 37,
69, 207; 35; 67; Bussia and, 304, 694,
733 ; non-intervention in, by England.
408 sq. ; 754 . ^ 6 .
Balzac, Honors de, 833
62— a
980
Index.
Bamberg, bishopric of, 704
Bank of England, 45
Baonr-Lormian, Pierre-M.-F.-Ii., S'rench
poet, 830
Bar, Confederation of, 335, 668, 673, 730
Duchy of, 155
Barailh, Admiral de, 110
Barbados, the English in, 186 ; 454
Barbara of Braganza, Queen-consort of
Ferdinand VI of Spain, 166; 361 sqq. ;
death of, 366
Barbary States, French trade mth, 173 ;
350
Barb^-Marbois, Franpois de, French chargS
d'affaires in America, 462
Barcelona, 29 ; 31 sq. ; Navarro's squadron
at, 236
Bari, the Viceroy Viaoonti at, 153
Bar-le-Duc, the Old Pretender at, 96, 98
Barnet, Curtis, Commodore, in the East
Indies, 535
Barras, Louis, Count de, French naval
officer, 453
Barr^, Isaac, Colonel, 425 ; 432 ; pensioned,
459
Barrier Treaty, the Dutch, 13; 23; 470
Barrington, William Wildmau Barrington,
second Viscount, 406 ; 424 sq.; 427; 450
Samuel, Admiral, 451
Bartenstein, Johann Christoph, Baron von,
Austrian statesman, 204 ; 626
Barwell, Bichard, member of the Indian
Council, 571 sq.
Basel, 615 ; 623 ; 625
Bashkirs, rising of, 681
Bassewitz, Colonel Adolphus Frederick von,
Hanoverian envoy at Stockholm, 36
Bassignano, Sardinians defeated at, 243
Bates, William, Presbyterian divine, 803
Bath, William Pulteney, Earl of, 47 ; 66 ; 71 ;
enters the Cabinet, 73; 74; 84
Thomas Thynne, first Marquis of
(Viscount Weymouth), 376; 424; 439;
resigns, 443 ; 447 ; 450
Bathurst, Henry Bathurst, second Earl,
Lord Chancellor, 443 ; 450
Bichard, President of Trinity College,
Oxford, 791
Batthy4ny, Count Karl Joseph von, Austrian
general, 241 sq.
Batzlow, Prussian army at, 281
Bautzen, Prussian retreat near, 290
Bavaria, and the Pragmatic Sanction, 202 sq. ;
and the War of the Austrian Succession,
299 sqq.; 275; Austria and, 630 sq., 633;
projected exchange of, 644 sqq. ; 677 ;
Frederick the Great and, 703 sq. ; 707
Charles Albert, Elector of. See
Charles VII, Emperor
Charles Theodore, Elector of, 647
703 ; 707
Maximilian Joseph, 241 sq. ; 630 sq.
703 ; 707
Baxter, Bichard, Presbyterian divine, 799
Holy Commonwealth, 801 ; 807
Beattie, James, poet, 830
Beaujolaia. Mademoiselle de, 126 ; 139 sq.
Beaumarchais, Pierre-Anguatin CarOn de,
French dramatist, 359, 823
Beaumont, Christophe de. Archbishop of
Paris, 347; 591
Beccaria, Cesare Bonesana, Marquis de, 602;
687
Bedford, John Bussell, fourth Duke of,
424 sqq. ; at Paris, 346, 428 ; 430 ; and
the Begency Act, 434 ; 439 ; 489
Bednore, taken by Tipu Sultan, 469
Behar, 556 ; Clive and, 564
Behlol, Sultan, founds his dynasty, 508
Belfast, volunteer defence corps in, 496
Belgiojoso, Count, 651
Belgium {see also Netherlands, Austrian),
237; 273; Dutch garrisons in, 640 sq.;
Bepublic proclaimed in, 653 ; Leopold IX
and, 655 sq.
Belgrade, 29; 32; 198; 203; capture of,
648 ; Peace of, 308, 674
Beliardi, Abb€, Agent-general in Spain, 351
Bellarmin, Boberto, Cardinal, 805
Belle Isle, 426; ceded to France, 428
Belleisle, Cbarles-L.-A. Fouquet, Duke of.
Marshal of France, 230 sqq. ; retreats
from Prague, 236; 239; in Italy, 245;
339; 362
Belloy, Pierre-Laurent-Buyrette de, French
writer, 831
Belovr, Frau von, 217
Belnchistan, the Emperor Hnm&yun in, 511
Benares, Warren Hastings and, 578 sqq.,
682, 584
Bender, Eussian capture of, 673
Benedict XIII (Vicenzo Orsino), Pope, 140;
587; 589
XIV (Prospero Lambertini), Pope,
228; Concordat of, with Spain, 365;
384 ; and the Jesuits, 386, 592 ; 589 sq. ;
and France, 591 ; 601
Benevento, 594 ; restored to the Papacy, 695
Benfield, Paul, servant of the East liidia
Company, 576
Bengal, Chapter XV passim ; 429 ; govern-
ment of, 445 ; 464
Bentham, Jeremy, 814; 821
Beraun Valley, Belleisle in, 236
Berbice river, the Dutch on, 186
Berg, duchy of, 226; 231
Bergen, port of, 737
Bergen-op-Zoom, taken by the French, 248,
331
Berghansen, Austria and, 633
Beringskjold, Magnus, Colonel, 749 ; 751
Berkeley, George, Bishop of Cloyne, 40;
54 sq.; 77 sqq. ; 806
Berlin, 217 sq. ; Government departments
at, 222 ; Bussian Company in, 224 ; 240 ;
244; 253; 265; 267 sq.; 287 sq.; 292 sq.;
occupied by Bussian and Austrian troops,
296, 326 ; 297 sq. ; 316 ; 327 ; Nivemais
at, 334; 713; 718; factories in, 719;
Beichsbank at, 721
Indew.
981
Berlin, Alliance of, 709
Peace of, 235, 240
Bermndas, failure of Berkeley's scheme in,
54 sq.; 184
Bermudez, confessor of Philip V, 137; 145
Bern, 613 sqq. ; 619; 622; and Austria,
623 ; the patriciate of, 624 ; 625
Bernier, Franfois, French historian, 520;
523; 525
Bemis, Fran<jois-Joachim de Pierre de.
Cardinal, French statesman, 254 ; at
Venice, 335 ; 337 sq. ; fall of, 341 sq. ; 400 ;
and the Bull Unigenitus, 591 ; created
Cardinal, 594; 595; 'sirritings of, 827
BemstorS, Andreas Gottlieb von, Hano-
verian statesman, 4 ; 10 ; 13 sqq. ; 20 ;
influence of, in England, 22; and the
•war with Sweden, 26 ; 35 ; 39
Andreas Peter, Danish "statesman,
741 ; 758 ; dismissal of, 764 ; adminis-
tration of, 755 sqq.
Johann Hartwig Ernst, Count von,
Danish statesman, 783 ; 740 sqq. ; fall
of, 746; 749; 751; 753; 755
Bertin, Henri-L.-J.-B., French Controller-
general, 356
Berwick, James Fitzjames, Duke of, Marshal
of France, 14 sq. ; 34 ; 97 sq. ; 102
Besborodko, Alexander, Bussian statesman,
678; 682; 697; 783
Bessarabia, 674
Bessborough, Brabazon Fonsouby, first
Earl of, 431 ; 489
Bestnzhefi, Alexis, Grand Chancellor of
Russia, 252; 318 sqq.; faU of, 322;
340 ; Catharine II and, 660, 663 ; 679
Michael, Bussian Minister at Stook-
hohn, 309 ; 315 ; at Paris, 322 sfq.
Count Peter, 301
Betzki, Count, 692
Bevem, Frederick Francis, Duke of Bruns-
wick-, Prussian general, 260; 264; 273 sq.
Biana, battle at, 509
BibikoS, Bussian general, 680 ; 687
Bielefeld, taxation in, 221
Bijapnr, besieged by Shah Jeh&n, 517 sq. ;
519 sqq. ; surrenders to Aurungzeb, 522
Biren, Ernst Johann, Duke of Courland,
Grand Chamberlain of Bussia, 301 ;
proclaimed Eegent, 309; 312 sq.; 665 sq.
Biscay, Bay of, 248 ; 344 ; Admiral Keppel
in, 450
Bischoffswerder, Johann Budolph von,
Prussian Adjutant - general (Farferus),
726
Biserta, French expedition against, 350
Bitonto, Spanish victoiy at, 158
Black Sea, Bussia and, 304, 630 ; 633 sq. ;
648 ; 673 sq. ; 676 ; 695
Blackbume, Bobert, Auctarium, 791
Blackford, burning of, 102
Blackness Castle, 92
Blackstone, Sir William, judge, 811
Blair Castle, siege of, 116
Blair, Bobert, poet, 828
Blake, William, poet, 824
Bodin, Jean, French political writer, 786 ;
803
Bodmer, Johann Jakob, Swiss writer, 625
Bohler, Peter, Moravian preacher, 82
Boers, the, in South Africa, 189
Bohemia, and the War of the Austrian
Succession, 210, 231 sqq., 240, 242 sq.,
250 ; Frederick the Great and, 251 ; 254 ;
the Seven Tears' War in, 255 sqq. ;
Prussian evacuation of, 262 ; 275 ; 277 ;
Prussian aimy in, 279 ; 289 ; 291 ;
Austrian army in, 294 ; 317 ; Joseph II
in, 626 sq. ; Frederick II in, 632 ; 638 ;
and the War of the Bavarian Succession,
704 sqq.
Boileau-Despr^aux, Nicolas, poet, 822 ; 829
Bolingbroke, Henry St John, Viscount, and
the succession, 11 sq. ; 14 sqq. ; dismissed,
18; 42 sq.; 71 sq.; 77; 89; and the Old
Pretender, 96 sq. ; 98 ; 394 ; 817 sqq.
Bolton, Charles Paulet, third Duke of, 70
Thomas Orde, Lord, chief secretary
for Ireland, 503 sq.
Bombay, 445 ; 529 ; and the decline of the
Moghul empire, 531 ; 534 ; 537 ; 582
Bonnac, French ambassador in Switzer-
land, 615 sq.
Bonne Anse, the Toung Pretender sails
from. 111
Borgoforte, Austrian force at, 153; 154
Borne, Prussian advance on, 275
Bosoawen, Edward, Admiral, 333 ; 537 sq.
Bosnia, 648; 675
Bosphorus, the, passage of, 673 sq.
Boston, 446 ; invested, 447 ; 451
Bothmer, Count Hans Caspar von, Hano-
verian envoy in London, 12 sqq. ; 16 ; in
London, 17 sqq. ; death of, 13
Bothnia, Gulf of, Bussian fleet in, 779
Botta, Marquis de, Austrian ambassador in
Bussia, 315 sqq.
Bouill6, Governor of Martinique, 451 ; 453
Boulter, Hugh, Ardibishop of Armagh,
486 sq. ; death of, 488
Bourbon, Louis-Henri, Duke of, 134 ; 138 ;
140 ; fall of, 143 sq. ; 146 ; 163
Boyle, Henry. See Shannon, Earl of
Brabant, 248 ; and the Barrier Treaty, 640 ;
frontiers of, 645 sq. ; Estates of, 650 sqq.
Braddock, Edward, Commander-in-chief in
North America, 333 ; 413
Braemar, Earl of Mar at, 98
Bragadin, Venetian envoy to Spain, 137
Braganza, captured by the Spaniards, 369
BraUoff, Bussian capture of, 673
Braithwaite, General, defeated by Tipu, 677
Bramahof, French troops in, 235
Brandeis, Prussian force at, 257 sq.
Brandenburg, 34 ; taxation in, 221 ; cloth
manufacture in, 224 sq. ; 269 ; 277 ;
279 ; 288; and Poland, 664 sq., 667
' the Mark, 265 sq. ; Bussian army
in, 277; 282; 287 sqq.; 291 sq. ; 295,
716
982
IvdeoB.
Brandenburg, the Eurmark, 716 ; 718
the New Mark, 279 sq. ; 287 ; 296 ;
715 sqq.
Frederick III, Elector of. See Fred-
erick I, King of Prussia
Frederick William, Elector of. See
Frederick William
Brandenburg-Schwedt, Hargiave Charles of,
280; 288
Brandon, Duke of. See Hamilton, fourth
Duke of
Brandt, Enevold, Count, Christian VII and,
745 sq. ; 749 ; execution of, 750 ; 751
Braunau, 236; fall of, 238
Brazil, in the seventeenth and eighteenth
centuries, Chapter XII (3) ; progress of,
184; 187; independence of, 189; 351;
384 ; Jesuits expelled from, 387
Breadalbane, John Campbell, first Earl of,
98
John Campbell, third Earl of, 435
Brechin, Jacobite rising at, 98
Breda, allied forces at, 246
Breisach, Charles of Lorraine at, 238
Breisgau, French troops in, 241
Breitinger, Johann Jakob, 625
Bremen, 21 ; annexed to Hanover, 23 sq. ;
28; Charles XU and, 34; 36; 89; and
Sweden, 104
Bremgarten, 616
Brenkenhof, Franz Balthasar Schonberg
von, 733
Breslau, Prussia and, 229 sq. ; 235 ; 264 ;
273 ; Prussian defeat at, 274 sq. ; sur-
render of, 276 ; 294 ; 721 ; Treaty of,
231, 317, 319
Brest, expedition sails from, 110 ; 112 ;
159 ; Boquefeuil's fleet at, 239 ; 349
Breteuil, Baron de, French ambassador at
St Petersburg, 327
Bridge of Conz, battle of, 4
Brieg, duchy of, 229 ; 230 sq.
Bristol, Whitefield at, 83
Augustus John Hervey, third Earl of,
451
Frederick Augustus Hervey, fourth
Earl of, Bishop of Derry, 501 sq.
George WiUiam Hervey, second Earl
of, at Madrid, 368, 419, 426 ; 431 ; 438 ;
Lord Privy Seal, 439 ; 442
Britanny, disturbances in, 130 ; 356 ; 452
British Museum, foundation of, 74
Brodrick, Alan. See Midleton, Viscount
Broglie, Charlea-Pranijois, Count de, French
ambassador in Saxony, 838
Francjois- Marie, Duo de. Marshal of
France, 233 sqq.
Viotor-Pranpois, Due de. Marshal of
France, 269
Broschi, Carlo. See FarinelU
Browne, Georg, Count Ton, Bussian general,
285
Maximilian Ulysses, Count von,
Austrian Field-marshal, 2S4 sqq. ; death
of, 259 ; 285 ; 362
Briihl, Count Heinrich von, Saxon states-
man, 198 sqq. ; 346
Briinu, siege of, 238
Brunswick, 254; Congress of, 39
Brunswick-Bevern. See Bevern
Brunswick - Liineburg, House of, 2 sq. ;
political record of, 4 sq.
(Celle), Duke Frederick of, 2
Duke George of, 2
Prince Maximilian William of, 3
(Celle), Christian Lewis, Duke
of, 2
-. George William, Duke
of, 2 sqq.; 7 sq. ; death of, 10 ; 12
Duchess Bleonora d'Ol-
breuse of, 3
(Hanover), Duke John Freder-
ick of, 3 sq.
Brunswick'Wolfenbiittel, Charles I, Duke
of, 266
Prince Antony Ulrie of, 809
•■ — Prince Ferdinand of, 265 sq. ;
268 ; 272 sq. ; 277; and the Army of Ob-
servation, 408 ; 426 ; 429
Prince Francis of, 290
Princess Anna Leopoldovna of,
809 ; 311 ; 315
Brussels, siege of, 246 ; 651 sq. ; Congress
of, 655; 656
Brzostowski, Constantino, Bishop of Vilna,
192
Bucharest, negotiations at, 634
Buckingham, George Nugent-Temple-Gren-
ville. Marquis of (Earl Temple), Lord-
lieutenant of Ireland, 462 sq., 474, 501,
505 ; 467
and Normanby, John Sheffield,
Duka of, 11
Buckinghamshire, John Hobart, second Earl
of, Lord-lieutenant of Ireland, 495 sqq.
Budin, Austrian magazine at, 257
Budweis, Austrians at, 234; 241
Billow, General von, 13
Buenos Ayres, growth of, 183 ; 186 ; 391 ; 443
Biiren, Ernst Johann. See Biren
Biirger, Gottfried August, German poet,
830; 832
Bug river, Turkey and, 305; 307
Bukowina, the, ceded to Austria, 634 ; 648
Bundela Bajputs, 517
Bunker Hill, battle of, 447
Bunzelwitz, Frederick the Great at, 297
Burgh, Walter Hussey, and the distress in
Ireland, 495; 497
Burghley, William Cecil, Lord, 45
Burgoyne, John, General, in Portugal, 369 ;
426
Burgundy, Duke of. See Louis, Dauphin
Burke, Edmund, 435 ; policy of, 442 ; 444 ;
and America, 447 ; 455 sq. ; Paymaster
of the Forces, 457 ; 458 ; 460 ; resigns,
462 ; 464 sqq. ; 476 sqq. ; 581 ; and the
trial of Warren Hastings, 471, 582 sq.,
584, 585 ; and Indian affairs, 667 ; 576 ;
813 ; 816 sq. ; 821 ; writings of, 836 sq.
Index.
983
Bnrkersdorf, Frederick the Great at, 299
Burnet, Gilbert, Bishop of Salisbury, 6;
802; 816
Burns, Eobert, poet, 824 ; 829 sq. ; 832 sq.
Burntisland, captured by Jacobites, 99 ; 102
Busbecq, Augier Ghislain, ImperiaJ. ambas-
sador at Constantinople, 507
Bnshell, Captain, at Glasgow, 106 sq.
Bussy, Francois de, French enyoy in London,
343; 345
Bussy-Castelnau, Charles-Joseph Patissier,
Marquis de, 533 ; in the Dekhan, 540 sq. ;
543 ; 545 sqq. ; 552 ; and the Naw&b of
Bengal, 558 ; in Cuddalore, 577
Bute, John Stuart, third Earl of, 298; 346;
and Spain, 368, 370 ; 407 ; and George III,
417 ; 419 sq. ; ministry of, 422 sqq. ;
426 sqq.; resigns, 429; 430; 434; 437
Butler, Joseph, Bishop of Durham, 77 sqq. ;
88
Buttstadt, army at, 267 ; 268
Buturlin, Alexander, Russian Field-marshal,
297; 326 sq.
Buxar, battle of, 561
Byng, Sir George, Admiral. See Torring-
ton, Viscount
John, Admiral, 403 sq.
Byron, George Gordon Noel, Lord, 825 ;
830; 832
John, Vice-admiral, 451 sq.
Cabarrus, Francis, Count de, Spanish
statesman, 382 sq.
Cadiz, 60 ; expedition from, 105 ; 155 ;
prosperity of, 166 ; 236 ; 351
Cadogan, William Cadogan, first Earl, 16 ;
23; 27; recalled, 39
Cadsand, taken by the French, 247
CagUari, Spanish expedition to, 29
CaiUaud, John, Indian officer, defeats Shah
Alam, 559
Calcutta, 531 sq. ; 534 sq. ; 546 ; 551 ;
siege of, 552 ; Clive at, 555 ; 557 ; Courts
of Appeal at, 568; 571
Calenberg-Gottingen (Hanover), 2 sq.; 8
Calvin, John, 254; 274; 798; 803
Cambray, Congress of, 39 ; 57 ; 126 ; 138 ;
archbishopric of^ 131
Cambridge, University of, 802
Duke of. See George I, King of Great
Britain
Camden, Charles Pratt, first Earl, 431;
435 ; 437 sqq. ; 441 ; dismissed, 442 ; 450 ;
President of Council, 457 ; 462 sq. ; 467
Cameron of Lochiel, 105 ; 109 ; 111 sq.
Archibald, Jacobite, 119
Campbell, Colin, of Glendaruel, 105
Daniel, of Shawfield, 107
Sir James, of Auchinbreck, 109
Campeachy Bay, logwood cutting in, 149
Gampeche, contraband trade at, 373
Campillo, Spanish statesman, 157 ; 159 ;
Elisabeth Famese and, 166 ; 362 ; 382
Campo Florido, Spanish ambassador in
Paris, 168; 166
Campo Santo, Spanish defeat at, 237 ; 241
Campomaues, Pedro Eodriguez, Count of.
President of the Council of Castile, 382
Campredou, N. de, French envoy to Stock-
holm, 36
Canada, colonisation of, 183 ; 248 ; 342 ;
ceded to England, 347 ; 349 sq. ; 351 ;
410 sqq. ; the Peace of Paris and, 428 ;
461
Company, the, 533
Candia, 675
Oauova, Antonio, sculptor, 117
Cap Francois, French fleet at, 452
Cape Breton, 249 ; regained by France, 331,
538; 428
Colony, development of, 188 sq.
of Good Hope, 454
Town, and Cape Colony, 189
Capodimonte, palace at, 596
Capua, held by the Austrians, 153
Carberry 9111, Prince Charles at, 113
Garelia^ Gustavns III and, 778
Caribbean Sea, 59 ; 62 ; European Powers
in, 185
Carinthia, Austria and, 204
Carlisle, Prince Charles at, 114 sq. ; 117
Frederick Howard, fifth Earl of, 450 ;
Viceroy of Ireland, 456, 499 ; 464 ; 467
Carlos, Don. See Charles III, King of Spain
Carlotta, Queen of John VI of Portugal,
381
Carmarthen, Marquis of. See Leeds, fifth
Duke of
Carmer, Johann H. C, Count, Prussian
High Chancellor, 728
Garnatic, the, Chapter XV (2) passim ; 465
Camiola, Austria and, 204
Carnwarth, Bobert Dalyell, sixth Earl of,
101; 103
Carolina, 61 ; 187 ; trade of, 447
Caroline, Queen of George II, 19 ; 42 ; 47 ;
77
Caroline Matilda, Queen of Christian VII,
743 ; and Struensee, 745 ; 746 ; 748 sqq. ;
death of, 752 sq.
Carpenter, George Carpenter, Lord, Lieu-
tenant-general, 101
Carrickfergus, French landing at, 489
Cartagena de las Indias, defence of, 165
Carteret, Lord. See Granville, Earl
Cartier, John, in India, 558; 566
Carvajal y Lancaster, Don Jos^ de, Spanish
statesman, 361 sqq. ; death of, 364
Carvalho e Mello, Sebastian Joseph. See
Pombal, Marquis of
Caserta, palace at, 596
Cassel, surrender of, 426
Castelar, Spanish Minister of War, 142;
149; 166
Spanish general, 362
Castile, Council of, 137 ; 142 ; economic
reform in, 383
Castro, Don Pedro de, 105
Catalonia, 34; evacuated by the French,
35; 136; 883
984
Index.
Catharine I, Tsarina, 143 ; 302 ; 312
II, Tsarina, Chapter XIX ; 316 ; and
Stanislaus Poniatowski, 200 ; 299 ; 322 ;
340; 346; the " Greek project " of, 353,
355 ; 354 ; and Poland, 357 sq., 730 sqq.;
Spain and, 378 ; 460 ; 629 ; and Prussia,
630 sq. ; 633 ; and Austria, 647 sq. ; 651 ;
and Frederick the Great, 352, 702, 707 sq.,
729; 742; and Denmark, 743 sq., 754;
746 ; 750 ; 753 ; 765 sq. ; and Sweden,
769 sqq.; 778; and Finland, 782 ; 783
lyanovna, sister of the Tsarina Anne,
309
Cattegat, the Bnsso-Banish squadron iB,
779
Caucasus, the, 673 sq., 676
Cavendish, Lord John, Chancellor of the
Exchequer, 457 ; 462 sqq.
Cellamare, Antonio Giudice, Duke of
Giovenazzo, Prince of, Spanish am-
bassador at Paris, 33 ; 121 ; 125 ; 130
CeUe, Queen Matilda at, 751, 758-
Cerdagne, Spain and, 141
Ceearotti, Melchiore, Italian writer, 830
Ceuta, fighting at, 151
ChagatMs clan, 508
Chait Singh, Baja of Benares, 471 ; 578 sqq.;
582 sq.
Champeaux, French ambassador in Spain,
156
Champion, Alexander, General, invades
BohUkhand, 669 sq.
Ch&nd Bibi, Queen Begent of Ahmednagar,
512 sq.
Chauda Sahib, Naw&b of the Caruatic, 533 ;
539 sqq.
Chandernagore, 347 ; 454 ; French rule in,
534 ; 544 ; 552 ; captured by the English,
553, 577 ; 554
Ghangama, Haidar Ali defeated at, 567
Chantilly, Duke of Bourbon sent to, 144
Chapman, Frederick Henry, in Sweden, 775
Charlemout, James CauMeld, first Earl of,
500 sqq.
Charleroi, siege of, 246 sq.
Charles V, Emperor, 138 ; 158 ; 507 ; 612
VI, Emperor, 21 ; 23 ; and Great
Britain, 25, 37 sqq., 61 sq. ; and Sardinia,
29 ; 30 sqq. ; 85 ; and the Vienna Treaties,
57, 60 ; 58 sq. ; 91 ; and the Old Pretender,
97 ; 109 ; 123 ; and Sicily, 124, 126 ; 125 ;
and Dubois, 131 ; and tiie Spanish claims
in Italy, 138 sqq. ; and the Jacobites, 142 ;
and Spain, 145 sq., 148 sq. ; 151 sqq. ;
165 ; and Chauvelin, 163 ; 169 ; and the
Ostend Company, 182 ; and Poland, 193 ;
and the Pragmatic Sanction, 201 sqq.,
228; 205 sqq.; 210; Frederick William I
and, 212 ; 227 ; 249 ; and Bussia, 308 ;
and the Papacy, 686 sqq. ; Venice and,
606; sells Finale, 608; 614 sq.; 640; 646;
741 ; 760 ; death of, 158, 204, 236
VII, Emperor (Elector of Bavairia),
199 ; marriage of, 201 ; and the Prag-
matic Sanction, 202 ; and the Austrian
Succession, 228 sqq.; regains Bavaria,
236 ; 238 ; 240 ; death of, 241 sq.
Charles I, Eiug of England, 795 sq.
II, King Of England, 6; 791; 808
II, King 01 Spain, 586
Ill, King of Spain (and of the Two
Sicilies), 62; 126; Italian claims of,
138 sqq. ; 147 sq. ; succeeds to the duchy
of Parma, 149 sqq. ; 152 ; conquers
Naples, 153; 155; marriage of, 156; 167;
202; the Two Sicilies ceded to, 203;
237 sq.; 241; 342; and the Family
Compact, 344; 346; 361; 363; reign of,
in Spain, 366 sqq.; 443; 588; and
Benedict XIV, 590; and the Jesuits,
692 sqq.; rule of, in Naples, 596 sqq.;
death of, 382
IV, King of Spain (Prince of the
Asturias), 366 ; 374 ; 381 ; 384
X Gustavus, King of Sweden, 664
XII, King of Sweden, 23 sqq.; 33 sqq. ;
and the Old Pretender, 97; and the
Jacobites, 104; 125; 192; and Stanislaus
Leszezynski, 193, 196; 206; 695; 735;
741 ; death of, 34, 104
Archduke of Austria, '656
Albert, Elector of Bavaria. See
Charles VII, Emperor
Edward, the Young Pretender, 74;
91 ; 106 ; at Paris, 110 ; in Scotland,
111 sqq. ; in England, 114 ; character of,
116 ; retreats to France, 117 ; 160 ; 249 ;
817 ; death of, 118
Emmanuel HI, King of Sardinia
(Prince of Piedmont), 30 ; and the war
with Austria, 162 sqq. ; and the Prelimi-
naries of Vienna, 165 ; 169 sqq. ; and Maria
Theresa, 236 sq.; 239; 241; 243 sqq.;
and the Peace of Aix-la-ChapeUe, 249;
362; 366 ; and the Papacy, 589 ; 608 sq.
Charleston, captured, 456
Charlotte Sojphia, Queen of George III,
434; 474 sq.
Chartres, Bishop of. See M^rinville
Duke of. See Orleans, Louis, Duke of
Chateaubriand, Fran9ois-Auguste, Vicomte
de, 40 ; 826 ; 830 sqq.
Ch&teauneuf, Paul de I'Hdpital, Marquis
de, French ambassador at St Petersburg,
322
Gh&teauroux, Madame de, 330
Chatham, William Pitt, first Earl of,
Chapter XIII (1) ; 40 ; 42 ; 56 ; 62 ; 71 ;
early years of, 73; advent to power of,
74 sqq. ; 81 ; 87 ; 263 ; 272 ; Frederick
the Great and, 298, 324, 328; and the
negotiations with France, 343, 345, 425
sq.; fall of, 346; 352; 365; 367 sq.;
423 sqq.; and the Peace of Paris, 429 j
430 ; and Wilkes, 431 ; and colonial
policy, 433 ; 434 sq. ; created Earl, 436 ;
administration of, 436 sqq. ; resigns, 439 ;
442; and America, 447; 448; 450; and
Beform, 465 ; and Indian affairs, 567 ;
Olive and, 570; 597
Index.
985
Ohatterton, Thomas, poet, 831 ; 832
Ohauvelin, Germain -Louis de, French
Foreign Minister, 147; 149; 166; 160;
, career of, 162 sq. ; disgrace of, 163
Chavigny, French diplomatist, 615
Chemnitz, Austrians in, 297
Chinier, Andre, poet, 834
Marie-Joseph, Fgnelon, 823
Cherkasld, Prince Alexis, Bussian minister,
303
Chemaya Dolina, Tartars repulsed at, SOS
ChernuishefF, Count Zachary, 294 ; 299 ;
326 ; 328 ; and Poland, 668 sq., 671 ;
697; 731
Chesapeake, naval action off, 453
Chesterfield, Philip Dormer Stanhope,
fourth Earl of, 70; 77; 79; 84
Ch^tardie, Marquis de La, French am-
bassador at St Petersburg, 308 sqq. ;
315 sq.'; 761
Chevert, French officer, at Prague, 236
Chiana, Yal di, drainage of, 603
China Company (French), 173 ; 533
Chingis Ehan, Mongolian conqueror, 508
Chinsnra, defeat of the Dutch at, 556, 558
Chippenham, election at, 72
Chisholm of Strathglass, 105
Chlam, Prussian army at, 342 ; 279
Choclm, fortress of, 307 sqq.
Choisenl, Etienne-FranQois, Duo de, French
Minister of Foreign Affairs, 323 sq.; 330 ;
341 sqq. ; and the Family Compact, 344
sq.; 846 sq.; and the Jesuits, 348, 592 ;
foreign policy of, 349 sqq. ; 353 ; Polish
policy of, 354; fall of, 355 sqq.; 358 sq.;
and Spain, 367 sq. ; 373 ; and the negotia-
tions with England, 418, 425 sqq. ; and
Corsica, 489 ; 594 sq.
Count de, at Vienna, 343
Choiseul-Fraslin, Due de, French Minister
of Foreign Affairs, 343
Choiseul-Bomanes, Madame de, 341
Choisy, French officer, 355
Chotek, Count Budolph Christian, Chancel-
lor of Bohemia and Austria, 639
Chotusitz, battle of, 234 sq.
Chrapovitzki, private secretary to Catha-
rine II, 699
Christian IV, King of Denmark, 735
VI, King of Denmark, 788 sq. ; 741 sq.
VII, King of Denmark, 742 sqq.;
746 sqq. ; 765
Ghristianstadt, Scanian fortress, 770
Chradim, Prussians at, 234
Chuartschen, bridge of, destroyed, 282
Chuvas, rising of, 681
Circassians, the, Bussians and, 674
Cirillo, Neapolitan lawyer, 699
CivitH Vecchia, Jesuits land at, 372 ; 593
Clarendon, Edward Hyde, third Earl of, 17
Clarke, Father, confessor of Philip V of
Spain, 145
Samuel, 77 sq.
Clarkson, Thomas, and the slave trade,
188, 472
Clavering, Sir John, General, 571 sq.
Clement XI (Giovanni Francesco Albani),
Pope, 97; 124; 131; 686 sq.; and the Bull
UnigenitUB, 588 ; 589 ; death of, 125
XII (Lorenzo Corsini), Pope, 160 ;
687 sqq.
XIII (Carlo Bezzonico), Pope, 421 ;
692 sq.; death of, 594
XIV (Giovanni Vincenzo Antonio
GanganeUi), Pope, 348 ; 694 sq.
Saxon agent in Berlin, 206 sq.
Gierke, Sir Philip Jennings, 450 ; 455 sq.
Clermont, Louis de Bourbon-Cond6, Count
de, 246; 248
Cleves, evacuated by the French, 300
Clifton, Jacobite force at, 116
Clive, Bobert Clive, Lord, in India, Chapter
XV (3) passim ; 438 ; death of, 566
Cobenzl, Philip von. Imperial Vice-Chan-
cellor, 662 sq.
Cobham, Bichard Temple, Viscount, 85 ; 70
Coigni, Franpois de Frauquetot, Count de,
Marshal of France, 158 sq. ; 240
Coimbra, University of, 388
Coke, Sir Edward, Eobbes and, 792
Colbert, Jean-Baptiste, Marquis de Seigne-
lay, 224; 632; 639
Colbjornsen, Christian, Danish Procurator-
general, 756
Coleridge, Samuel Taylor, writings of, 829 ;
832; 836 sq.
Colleubach, Austrian diplomatist, 346
Collier, Sir George, Vice-admiral, 449
Collins, WilUam, poet, 824; 828; 830; 832;
834 sq.
Cologne, Clement Augustus, Elector of, 202
Colonia, settlement of, 391
Golorno, Austrian check at, 154
Coltbridge, Gardiner's Horse at, 112
Colyer, Count, Dutch diplomatist, 32
Comacchio, occupied by Austrians, 586 sq.
Company of Scotland trading to Africa and
the Indies, 91
of the Indies. See East India
Company (French)
of the West. See Mississippi
Company
Compilgne, negotiations at, 338
Cond4, Louis II de Bourbon, Prince de,
191
Condillap, Etienne Bonnoi de, French
philosopher, 825
Condore, English victory at, 548
Confians, French commander in the
Northern Circars, 548
Congo river, 187
Goni, defence of, 241
Conjeveram, Munro at, 576
Connaught, pasture land in, 490
Connecticut, tradd of, 447
Constantino, Grand Duke of Bussia, 674 ;
681; 696; 708
Constantinople, the Greek Empire at, 606 ;
675 ; Treaty of, 308
Constitutional Society, 477
986
Index.
Conti, Franijois-Louis de Bourbon, Prince
of, 191 ; 243 ; 246 sq. ; 340
Conway, Henry Seymour, Field-marshal,
432 ; Secretary of State, 435 sciq.; 466;
463
Cook, James, navigator, 182
Cooke, Greorge, joint Paymaster of the
Forces, 437
Coote, Sir Eyre, General, 469; 548 sq.;
S54 ; and Mir Jafar, 558 ; death of, 577
Cope, Sir John, Lieutenant-general, 112 sqq.
Indian officer, 541
Copenhagen, 36 ; Bestuzhefi at, 313 ; under
Frederick IV, 737; under Christian VI,
738; University of, 739; Bernstorff at,
740; 743 sq.; 746 sqq.; 754
Copernicus, Nicolaus, 792
Cordoba, Son Luis de, Spanish admiral,
376; 379
Cork, the provision trade of, 490
Cornish, Sir Samuel, Vice-admiral, 369;
427
Cornwall, Duke of Ormond in, 102
Cornwallis, Charles Oomwallis, first Marquis,
453 ; in India, 475, 664, 568, 577
Coromandel coast, the, 534 sq.; 538; 547;
549; dynastic wars on, 651; 577
Corryarraok, Pass of, 112
Corsica, Prance and, 439, 610, 623 ; Jesuits
in, 593; 608 sq.
Corunna, 105; blockaded, 125
Coryate, Thomas, traveller, 615
Coscia, Cardinal, 587; 689
Cossacks, rising of, 681; 695
Cottbus, General Laudon at, 282
Courland, 302 ; 317 sq.; 629; Eussian in-
fluence in, 665 sq.
Anne, Duchess of. See Anne, Tsarina
Benigna (von Treiden), Duchess of,
302
Ernst Johann Biren, Duke of. See
Biren
Jakob ni, Duke of, 301
Court, de, French admiral, 160; 236
Courtrai, taken by Marshal Saxe, 240
Coventry, Cumberland's army at, 114
Ooveripak, Clive at, 541
Cowell, John, professor of law, 786
Cowley, Captain, and the Falkland Islands,
373
Abraham, poet, 791
Cowper, William, poet, 79; 826; 828
Cracow, Augustus II crowned at, 191 ; 669
Gra/tsman, the, political journal, 71
Craggs, James, 41; 181
younger, 30; 34; 38; 41; 181
Crail, Jacobites at, 99
Cramer, Johann Aiidreas, German divine,
741
Crawford, John Lindsay, twentieth Earl of,
116
Crefeld, taxation in, 221
Cremona, Elisabeth Farnese and, 162 ; 154
Creutz, Count Philip, Swedish ChancelloT,
777
Crieff, burnt by the Jacobites, 102
Crillon, Duke of, at Minorca, 379
Crimea, the, 305; 307; 634; 648; 651;
Catharine II and, 668,672; 673; annexed
by Russia, 675 sq. ; 695 ; ceded to Bussia,
709; 778
Cromarty, George Mackenzie, third Earl
of, 117
Crommeliu, Samuel Louis, and the Irish
linen industry, 482
Cromwell, Oliver, the Protestant Scheme
of, 614; 795 sq.; 803; 805; 813
Crosby, Brass, Lord Mayor of London, 444
Grozat, Antoine, French merchant, 172
Cuba, the economic conditions of, 186
Cuddalore, 464; besieged, 577
Guddapah, Naw&b of, 641
Custrin, 212; arsenal of, 279; bombard-
ment of, 280; 282; 298
Cullen, Government force at, 116
Culloden, battle of, 116, 246
Cumberland, Prince Charles in, 114
Henry Frederick, Duke of, marriage
of, 445
William Augustus, Duke of, 114 sqq. ;
at Fontenoy, 242 sq. ; 246 sqq.; 263;
340 sq.; 405; 408
Richard, and the Gibraltar negotia-
tions, 377 sq.
Cunha, Luis da, Portuguese Secretary for
Foreign Affairs, 385
Cura<;oa, the Dutch in, 186
Cnyaba, province of, 390
Czartoryski, family of, 193; 196; pre-
dominance of in Poland, 198 sqq. ; 354 ;
666 sq.
Prince Augustus, Prince Palatine,
198
Florian, Primate of Poland, 198
Prince Michael, Prince Chancellor,
198
Czaslau, Austrian troops in, 234
Dacia, kingdom of, 674; 676
Dales, the, Swedish mining districts, 779
Dalhousie, James Andrew Broun Bamsay,
first Marquis of, 663
Dalmatia, the Turks in, 30; 648; 676
Dalreoch, burnt by Jacobites, 102
Dalton, John, Indian officer, 541
Damiens, Jean-Francois, 339; 347
Dampier, William, seaman, 182
Danneskjold - Samsoe, Count Frederick,
Danish Minister of Marine, 739
Danube, 231 sq. ; Charles of Lorraine at
235; 237; 306; opened to Russian ships
648
Danubian Principalities (<ee aleo Moldavia
Wallaohia), 307; 634; Catharine's de
signs on, 668 sq.; 672; 731 sq.
Danzig, 196; siege of, 196 sq.; 630; 669
671; Prussia and, 708 sq., 730; 732 sqq.
D&ra Shekoh, son of the Emperor Shah
Jeh&n, 518 sq.
Dajrby, George, Vioe-admiral, 452
Index.
987
Dardanelles, the, passage of, 674
Darien Company (Company of Scotland
trading to Africa and the Indies), See
Company
Darlington, Sophia Charlotte von Kielmanns-
egge. Countess of, 19
Dartmouth, William Legge, second Earl of,
435; Lord Privy Seal, 447
Dasbkoff, Princess Catharine, 661 Bq. ; 679 ;
697 sq.
Dashwood, Sir Francis. See Le Despencer,
Lord
Daun, Count Leopold Joseph Maria,
Austrian Field-marshal, 260 sqq. ; 273
sqq. ; at Ohnutz, 277 sq. ; 280 eqq. ; 287 ;
at Torgau, 296 sq.; 299; 325 sq.; 626;
705
Dauphin^, Belleisle retreats to, 245
Davel, and Vaud, 625
Defoe, Daniel, 815 sqq. ; 833
Deggendorf, attack on, 238
Dekhan, the, Chapter XV (2) passim
Delhi, 508; captured fay Babar, 509 ; 511 eq.;
519 sqq.; seized by Bah&dur Shah, 523;
524 sq.; 553; 568
Delille, Jacques, French poet, 827
Delmenhorst, Denmark and, 736 ; 741 sq. ;
744 ; exchange of, 753
Demer river, French forces at, 246
Demerara river, Dutch on, 186
Denmark, under the BernstorSs and
Struensee, Chapter XXI; and Bremen,
21, 24; 26; 35; and Sweden, 36 sq. ;
joins the Hanover Alliance, 59 ; 186 ; and
the slave trade, 187 sq. ; and the Prag-
matic Sanction, 202 ; Great Britain and,
323; 352; Peter III and, 661; Sweden
and, 762, 770, 779 sq.
Derbend, evacuated by Eussia, 304
Derby, Prince Charles at, 114
Derschavin, Qabriel Bomanovich, Bnssian
poet, 698
Derwentwater, James Badcliffe, third Earl
of, 101; 103
Des Touches, French admiral, 453
Dettingen, George II at, 109; 238; 250
Devicota, Indian port, 638
Devonshire, William Cavendish, second
Duke of, 13
William Cavendish, fourth Duke of
(Marquis of Hartington), 75; 404 sq. ;
424 sq.; resigns, 428; 431; 489
Dickens, Guy, British attachg at Berlin, 212
Diderot, Denis, 165; and Catharine II, 678,
698; 823; 826; 833; 837
Dingolfing, storming of, 238
Divi, ceded to the French, 539
Dnieper, river, Turkey and, 305; 307; 674;
695
Dniester, river, Turkey and, 304; 307; 676
Dobersohiitz, heights of, 290
Dodington, George Bubb. See Melcombe,
Lord
Dohna, Christoph von, Prussian general,
277; 279 sq.; 287; 291 sq.
Dolben, Sir William, 473
Dolgoruki, family, persecution of, 302
Domhardt, Johann Friedrich von, Prussian
official, 733
Dominica, England and, 185 sq. ; 426 ; 428 ;
436; taken by the French, 451; 464
Domitz, fortress of, 266
Domstadtl, Pass of, battle of, 278 sq. ; 286
Don, river, 304; Turkey and, 305
Donauworth, troops at, 237
Donegal, Marquis of, and the Steelboys, 491
Donetz, river, Peter the Great' and, 305
Doppelgrund, the, Bussian army at, 285
Dorset, Lionel Cranfield Saokville, first
Duke of, Lord-lieutenant of Ireland, 489
Dost Ali, Kawab of the Carnatio, 532 sq.;
535
Dover, Lord. See Torke, Joseph
Dowdeswell, William, Chancellor of the
Exchequer, 435; 437
Down, County, the Steelboys in, 491
Downshire, Wills Hill, Marquis of (Viscount
Hillsborough), 378; 424; 430; President
of the Board of Trade, 437 ; Colonial
Secretary, 429 sq. ; 447 ; 450 ; Secretary
of State, 498
Drake, Sir Francis, Admiral, 65
Boger, Governor of Calcutta, 552
Draper, Sir William, Lieutenant-general,
369; 427
Dresden, 231; capitulates, 244; 256; 273;
287; 288; occupied by Austrians, 294;
296; Treaty of, 244; 318
Drummond, James, second titular Duke of
Perth, 103
James, third titular Duke of Perth,
109; lllsq.
Lord John, fourth titular Duke of
Perth, 109; 115; 117
Du Barry, Marie-Jeanne Gomard de Yau-
bemier. Countess, 330; 856; 359; 373;
595
Dublin, disturbances in, 485, 489, 491 ;
distress in, 495, 503; 497; Volunteer
Convention at, 501 sq. ; S04
Society, the, 484
Dubois, Guillaume, Cardinal, and the nego-
tiations with Great Britain, 26 sq.
29 sq.; in London, 31; 38; 123 sq.; 126
129 sq.; ministry of, 131; 134; 144
587 ; death of, 127, 131
Duddingston, Prince Charles at, 113
Du DefEand, Marquise, 767
Duguay-Trouin, Ben^, French admiral, 391
Duich, Loch, Jacobites at, 106
Du Luc, French ambassador to Switzerland,
613; 615
Dumas, Benolt, Governor of Pondicherry,
633
Dumbarton Castle, 92; Bushell at, 107
Dnmouriez, Charles Franpois, French
general, 355
Dunamiinde, fortress of, 315
Dunbar, Cope at, 113
Dunblane, Duke of Argyll at, 100
988
Index.
Dundas, Henry, Viscount Melville. See
Melville
Dundee, Jacobite rising at, 98
William Graham, fifth titnlar Vis-
count of, 98
Dungannon, 499; volunteers at, 501
Dungeness, French fleet at, 239
Dunkeld, Jacobite rising at, 98
Dunkirk, 23; the Old Pretender at, 92 sq.;
102; 110; 159 J 239; and the Treaty of
Aiz-la-Chapelle, 249; 331; 340; fortifi-
cations of, 345 sq., 429, 436; 464
Dunning, burnt by the Jacobites, 102
John. See Ashburton, Lord
Dunrobin, Earl of Sutherland at, 99
Dupleiz, Joseph, Governor-general of French
India, 533 sqq. ; defends Pondicherry,
538; 539; 541; fall of, 542; policy
of, 643 sq. ; character of, 545 ; 546
Duras, Due de, 334
Dutch Eepublic. See United Provinces of
the Netherlands
Du Tillot, Parmesan Minister, 593 sq.
Duvelaer, Director of the French East-
India Company, 542
Duverney, Paris, 134; 144
Dyson, Jeremiah, Clerk of the House of
Commons, 424; 427; 438 sq.; 442
Dzikowa, partisans of Stanislaus at, 197
East India Company (Dutch), 188
(English), Chapter XV (2)
and (S) passim; 45; 49; 180; 438; 445
sq.; 465; 467; 469
(French), 173 sqq. ; 532
sq. ; 535 ; 544 sqq. ; privileges of sus-
pended, 549 sq.
East Indies, 57; England and, 248 ; Jesuits
expelled from, 387 ; 429 ; 756
Eden, William. See Auckland, Lord
Edgcumbe, Bichard Edgoumbe, second
Lord, 437
Edinburgh, castle of, 92; 94; 98 sq. ;
the Porteous mob in, 108 ; 111 ; Prince
Charles in, 112 sq. ; 114 sq. ; and John
Law, 169, 175
Eger river, attack on, 234 ; 236 ; 255
Egmont, John Perceval, second Earl of,
424 ; 430 ; 435 ; 437
Egremont, Charles Wyndham, second Earl
of, 420; 424; 426; 430
EguiUes, Alezandre-J.-B. de Boyer, Mar-
quis de, 113
Egypt, 51 ; French advance into, 350 ; the
Osmanli Sultans and, 507
Ebrensvard, August, Swedish naval engineer,
775
Eickstedt, Hans Henrik, Danish general,
751
Binsiedeln, town of, and Sohwyz, 625
Eisenach, 263 sq. ; Prussian force at, 265 ;
269
Elba, Spanish fortress in, 124
Elbe river, 234 ; Frederick II crosses, 241 ;
242 ; 244 ; 257 sq. ; 263 ; French troops
on, 265 sq. , crossed by the Austrians,
296 J 298
Elcho, David Wemyss, Lord, Jacobite,
114
Eldon, John Scott, first Earl of, 466
Elibank plot, 119
Elie, Jacobites at, 99
Eliott, George Augustus. See Heathfield,
Lord
Elizabeth, Queen of Bohemia, 1
Queen of England, 701
Tsarina, 143, 200; 240; 252 sq. ;
291; 310 sq. ; character of, 312 ; reign of,
313 sqq.; and Frederick the Great, 327;
340 ; 346 ; 399 ; and Prussia, 401 ; 657 sq. ;
660; 741 sq.; Sweden and, 761; death
of, 298, 328, 661
Christina, Empress, 143 ; 147
Farnese, Queen of Spain, the Eegenoy
of, Chapter V passim; 25; 35; 57; 60;
65 ; and Alberoni, 125 ; 126 ; character
of, 122, 134 sqq., 167 ; 137 ; and the
Italian claims, 138 sq, ; 140 ; and
Bipperd&, 142 sq. ; 144 ; and the Prag-
matic Sanction, 202; schemes of, in
Italy, 236; and d'Argenson, 245; 249;
361 , and Charles IH, 366 sq. ; 596 sq. ;
death of, 372
Ellandonan, Jacobites at, 105
Elliot, Sir Gilbert, 424 sq. ; Treasurer of
the Navy, 442
Hugh, British minister at Copen-
hagen, 780
Ellis, William, Indian official, 560 sq.
Elphinston, John, Bussian rear-admiral,
355; 673
Emmanuel, Infant of Portugal, 195
Emo, Angelo, Venetian admiral, 606
England (see also Great Britain), and Ire-
land, Chapter XIV passim ; the Bomantio
movement in. Chapter XXIV passim ;
political philosophy in. Chapter XXIQ;
the Jacobite rising (1715) in, 101 ; Prince
Charles in, 114 sq. ; the South Sea Com-
pany in, 177 sqq. ; 182 ; abolition of
slavery in, 188; Methodism in, 226;
Christian VH in, 744
Enke, Wilhelmina, mistress of Frederick
William H, 725
Enaeiiada, Zeno Somodevilla, Marquis of,
Spanish statesman, 159 ; 166 ; 361 sqq. ;
Charles IH and, 367 ; 382
Eon, Chevalier de, French spy, 428
Epworth, Wesley at, 86
Erfurt, Prussian troops at, 265 ; 268 sq. ;
bishopric of, 704
Eriska, Prince Charles lands at, 112
Ermeland, Prussia and, 730 sq. ; bishopric
of, 669
Erskine, Ebenezer, Scottish seceder, 108
William, historian, 507
Escurial, Treaty of the, 62, 152
Eslava, Viceroy of Cartagena, 165
Essay on Woman, 431
Essequibo river, the Dutch on, 186
Index.
989
Estaing, Charles-Hector Th^odat, Count
de, f ranch admiral, 351 ; 451 sq.
Esterhazy, Prince Nicholas, Austrian
ambassador at St Petersburg, 253 ; 322 ;
325 ; 327
Esthonia, Buesia and, 206 ; 317
Estr^es, Louis- Charles -C^sar, Duo de,
, Marshal of France, 257; 339; 405; 426
Etiolles, Lenormant de, 330
Eugene Francis, Prince of Savoy-Carignan,
14 ; 29 sq. ; 91 ; and Bipperda, 139 BC|.q. ;
145 ; 198 ; 203 ; 206 ; 267
Eupatoria, Bussian capture of, 673
Evelyn, John, 799
Evening Post, the, 441
Exilles, 159 ; battle of, 245, 362
Fabrioe, Friedrioh Ernst von, 20 ; mission
of, to Sweden, 28, 34
Johann Ludwig von, Hanoverian
councillor, 20
Weipart Ludwig von, Hanoverian
judge and councillor, 20 ; 28
Falari, Duchess of, 131
Falkirk, 112; Jacobite victory at, 115
Falkland Isles, 373; claimed by Spain,
437; 443
Family Compact, the. Chapter XI
Farinelli (Carlo Broschi), Neapolitan singer,
167 ; 362 ; 364 ; 367
Febronius. See Hontheim
Fenestrelles, France and, 159
Ferdinand I, Emperor, 158; 507
V (the Catholic), Sing of Spain,
151; 167
— ^ 71, King of Spain, 137 ; 139; 145 ;
147 ; marriage of, 166 ; 249 ; 342 ; reign
of, 361 sqq. ; death of, 366 ; 368 ; 597
I (IV), King of the Two Sicilies, and
the Family Compact, 344 sq. ; 366; 368;
594; 597
Ferghana, principality of, 509
Ferishta, Persian historian, 512
Fermor, Count William, Bussian general,
277 ; 279 sqq. ; 322 sqq.
Ferraris, Count Joseph, Austrian Field-
marshal, 652
Ferrol, arsenal of, 125 ; 365
Fersen, Count Axel Fredrik af, Swedish
statesman, 763 sqq. ; 768; 776; 781;
783
Fielding, Henry, novelist, 833
Fife, Jacobite successes in, 99
Figueroa, Don Manuel Ventura, President
of the Council of CastUe, 374
Fihner, Sir Eobert, writings of, 802 sqq.
Finale, Genoa and, 249; 608
Finchley Common, army at, 114
Finck, General von, made Commander-in-
chief by Frederick II, 293; 294
Findlater, James Ogilvy, fourth Earl of, 96
Finkenstein, Count von, Prussian Minister
of Foreign Affairs, 265 ; 293 ; 328 ; 706 ;
709
Finland, 35 j 37 ; 309 ; Swedish invasion
of, 310; 314; Catharine II and, 694;
760 sq.; 770 ; 775 sq. ; 778 sq. ; Sweden
and, 782
Firmian, Leopold A. E., Count von, Arch-
bishop of Salzburg, 218
Fitzgerald, SirThomas, Spanish ambassador
in London, 66
Fitzherbert, AUeyne. See St Helens, Lord
Maria Anne, and George IV, 472
Fitzmaurice, Lord. See Lansdowne, first
Marquis of
FitzwiUiam, William Wentworth Fitz-
william, second Earl, 478
Flanders, Marshal Saxe in, 240, 243;
246 sq. ; 331 ; and the Barrier Treaty,
640 ; 644 ; boundaries of, 645 sq.
Fleming, Charles, Jacobite envoy, 92
Fleury, Andr^-Hercule, Cardinal, French
statesman, 69 ; and the Jacobites, 109 ;
131 ; 134 ; 143 sqq. ; and Spanish affairs,
148 sqq., 158 sq. ; and Poland, 152 ;
154 sqq. ; character and administration
of, 161 sqq. ; and Louis XV, 164 ; and
Elisabeth Farnese, 165 ; and the Prag-
matic Sanction, 203 ; 204 ; and the
Austrian Succession, 228 sq. ; 231; 235 ;
236; and Bussian affairs, 308; 331; 533;
death of, 109, 159, 239, 329
Flood, Henry, Irish politician, 492 ; 494 ;
497 ; and Irish parliamentary reform,
501 sq.
Florence, Don Carlos enters, 160 ; 602
Florida, 347; ceded to Great Britain,
370; Spanish conquest of, 377; 380 sq. ;
428 sq. ; 453 ; 464
Florida Blanca, Don Jos£ Monino, Count
of, Spanish statesman, 374 sq. ; and
Gibraltar, 377 sqq. ; 381 ; reforms by,
382 sq.
Flushing, Austrian vessel stopped at, 643
Focktchany, conferences at, 634
Fogliani, Neapolitan minister, 597
Fontainebleau, 144; the Preliminaries of,
299, 346, 428 ; Treaty of, 113, 159, 239,
645 sq.
Fontenoy, battle of, 111, 242, 247, 250, 331
Forbes, Duncan, of CuUoden, 107
of Pitsligo, Alexander Forbes, Lord,
Jacobite, 114 ; 117
Forbin, Claude de. Count, 92 sq.
Forde, Francis, captures Masulipatam, 548;
556
Forster, Thomas, Jacobite general, 101;
103
Fort Augustus, 106 sq. ; 112; 116 sq.
Duquesne, battle at, 332
George, Inverness, 107; 116
James, 464
St David, siege of, 248, 537 sq., 547
St George, surrender of, 537 ; 552
WilUam, India, 537
Inverness, siege of, 116
Forth, Firth of, 92 sq.
Foscolo, Ugo, Italian poet, 824; 830
Foster, John. See Oriel, Lord
990
Index.
Fouqn^, Frnssian general, 279; 294
Fox, Charles James, itSO ; and the Wilkes
case, 441 ; 445 sq. ; 451 ; leads Beform
movement, 45S; 4S6; Secretary of State,
457 ; and Ireland, 458; 459 ; negotiates
for peace, 460 sq. ; resigns, 462 ; 463 sqq.;
the India Bill of, 466 sq., 581 ; dismissed,
467 ; 468 sq. ; and Pitt's second India
Bill, 470; 471 sqq. ; 475; and Burke,
476; 477 sq. ; and Ireland, 500, 504;
501 ; and Warren Hastings, 581, 584
George, Quaker, 799
Henry. See Holland, Lord
FrancaTilla, Spanish victory at, 125
France, the Bourbon Government in
(1714-26), Chapter IV; (1727-46), Chapter
V ; and the Seven Years' War, Chapter IX
passim; and the "Beversal of Alliances"
and the Family Compact, Chapter XI
passim ; and India (1720-63), Chapter
XY (2) and (3) patsim; and Switzer-
land, Chapter XyU. passim ; the Bomantio
movement in. Chapter XXIV passim ; 4 ;
the Grand Alliance against, 9 ; and Great
Britain, 21 sq., 25 sq. ; and the Triple
Alliance, 27 ; 28 ; and the Quadruple
Alliance, 30 sq. ; at war with Spain,
33 sq. ; 35 ; strained relations of, with
Great Britain, 38 sq., 60 eqq. ; colonial
policy of, 55; and the Vienna Treaties,
57 sq. ; and the Hanover Alliance, 59 ;
60 ; 63 ; 65 ; 68 sq. ; and the Jacobites,
97, 102 sqq., 109 sqq., 115; financial
position of, 168 sq. ; Law's system in,
169 sqq. ; 182 ; and America, 183, 327,
375, 410 sqq., 422 ; and the West Indies,
185 sq., 414 sq. ; 187 ; 190 ; and Poland,
193 sqq., 665, 667 sq. ; and the Pragmatic
Sanction, 202 ; acquires Lorraine, 203 ;
army of, 213 ; 217 ; and the Austrian
Succession, 228 sqq. ; and the War of
the Austrian Succession, 231, 241, 310;
234 sq. ; and the war in Italy, 236;
238 sqq. ; and the accession of Francis I,
242 sqq. ; and the war in the Nether-
lands, 246, 248 ; and the Peace of Aix-
la-Chapelle, 249, 363 ; and Silesia, 250 ;
Count Osterman and, 303 ; 307 ; and
Sweden, 308, 310, 313 sq., 759 sq.,
763 sqq., 769, 775, 782 sqq. ; Eussia and,
313, 315, 318 sqq. ; and the Seven Tears'
War, 323 sqq.; state of, at the death of
Louis XY, 3C0; 362 sq.; and Spain,
364 sq., 367 sq., 373; Pitt and, 393,
418 sq. ; and European alliances, 39'7
sqq. ; and the Anglo-Prussian alliance,
400 ; alliance of, with Austria, 320,
400 sq. ; and the Peace of Paris (1763),
428 sq. ; 430 ; 436 ; the navy of, 444 ;
the United States and, 449 ; and the
naval war with Great Britain (1778-9),
451 sqq. ; and the Peace with Great
Britain, 461 sqq. ; 466 ; Treaty of Com-
merce, with Great Britain, 471 ; loses
Indian possessions, 475 ; declares war
against Great Britain (1793), 476 sq.;
496 ; and the Papacy, 586, 594 ; Jansen-
ism in, 587 sq., 591 ; Jesuits expelled
from, 372, 592; 597; and Italy, 608;
and Corsica, 609 sq. ; 626 ; Austria and,
631 ; and the War of the Bavarian
Succession, 632 ; 633 ; and the Scheldt
dispute, 644 sq. ; 646 sq. ; 656 ; and the
Eusso-TurkishWar, 673; 675; Catharine
II and, 677 ; and Prussia, 702, 708 sq. ; and
the Peace of Teschen, 707; 709 ; 717 sq.;
723; 730; 735; and St Croix, 738, 740 sq.;
Christian YH in, 744 ; 755 sq. ; Gustavus
III in, 767 sq. ; 722 ; 803 ; 815 ; 821
Franche Comt^, 141
Francis I, Emperor (Duke of Lorraine,
afterwards Grand Duke of Tuscany), 140 ;
152 ; and Tuscany, 155 sq. ; elected
Emperor, 160 ; 203 ; 229 ; and the War
of the Austrian Succession, 231 ; 242 sq. ;
and the Treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle, 249 ;
257 ; and the Papacy, 590 sq. ; 600 ;
death of, 626 •
Francis, Sir Philip, and Warren Hastings,
581, 584 ; in India, 571 sq. ; 574 sqq.
Francke, August Hermann, German divine,
226
Franconia, and the War of the Austrian
Succession, 238; 273
Frankenberg, Johann H., Archbishop of
Malines, 652; 656
Frankfort-ou-Main, Diet of, 233 ; Union
of, 240
Frankfort-on-Oder, Bussian and Austrian
allies at, 292, 324
Franklin, Benjamin, and colonial federation,
412 sq. ; 449 ; and peace negotiations,
460 sqq.
Eraser, Simon, of Beaufort. See Lovat,
Lord
Frauenberg, surrender of, 234
Frederick HI, ICing of Denmark, 735
IV, King of Denmark, 23 ; and
Sweden, 28, 37; death of, 735 sq. ; 737;
739; 741
V, King of Denmark, 739 sqq. ; death
of, 742 ; and Sweden, 762
YI, King of Denmark, 188 ; 735 ;
birth of, 743 ; 751 ; 753 sqq.
" Hereditary Prince " of Denmark,
749 sqq. ; 755
I, King of Prussia (Frederick in,
Elector of Brandenburg), 6 ; 8
II (the Great), King of Prussia, reign
of. Chapter XX ; and the War of the
Austrian Succession, Chapter YIII (3)
passim; and the Seven Years' War,
Chapter IX passim ; 119 ; invades
Silesia, 158 ; 160 ; 165 ; 207 ; 210 ; and
Frederick William I, 211 sq. ; 216 ;
policy of, 227; and the War of the
Austrian Succession, 310 ; 314 ; and
Bestuzbefi, 316; and Bussia, 317 sqq.,
322 sqq.; 344; and the "Beversal of
Alliances," 366 sqq. ; and the Treaty of
Index.
991
HabertuBbnrg, 846 ; 352 ; and Poland,
353, 355, 357, 665 egq. ; 358 ; 398 sqq. ;
and the Treaty of Versailles, 401 sq. ;
and Pitt, 393, 404, 409 sq., 416, 418, 421,
437 ; 405 sq. ; and the English alliance,
407 sqq., 422 ; deserted by England, 427;
and Benedict XIV, 589 ; and the Swiss,
633 ; and Eaunitz, 629 , and Bnssia,
630 ; and Bavaria, 631 sq. ; meeting of,
with Joseph II, 633; 646; and the
Furstenbund, 647 ; 655 ; and Catharine II,
658 sq., 664, 677 sq. ; Peter HI and, 661 ;
673 ; and Turkey, 675 ; 696 ; 699 ; 763 ;
and Bernstorfi, 740, 744 ; 767 ; death of,
647
Frederiok I, Eing of Sweden, 37; and the
Congress of Brunswick, 39 ; 742 ; 761 ;
death of, 762
Augustus, Elector of Saxony. See
Augustus, Eing of Poland
I, Eing of Saxony, and the
Furstenbund, 708
Christian, Elector of Saxony. See
Saxony
Louis, Prince of Wales, 66 ; 68 sq. ;
72 ; 76 ; 210 ; death of, 740
William, Elector of Brandenburg
(the Great Elector), 4 ; the postal system
of, 205; 206; 208; 213; and the
nobility, 217 ; 221 ; 227 ; 664
I, Eing of Prussia, reign of.
Chapter VIII (2) ; 8 ; and the Elector
George Lewis, 17; 21; 23 sq. ; and
Sweden, 35 sq. ; 37 ; and the Congress
of Brunswick, 39 ; and the Hanover
Alliance, 59 ; 143 ; 196 sq. ; and the
Pragmatic Sanction, 202 ; 230; economic
policy of, 714 sq., 717 sqq., 722
II, Eing of Prussia, reign of.
Chapter XX ; 293 ; 648 ; 656
Frederiksborg, 37
Frederikshald, death of Charles XII at, 34
Fredrikshamm, fortress of, 314
Freiberg (Saxony), 297 ; battle at, 299
Freiburg (Switzerland), the patriciate of,
624; 625
Freiburg-im-Breisgau, 241; 637
Frew, Prince Charles at, 113
Friedland, Swedish troops in, 280
Friends of the People, 477
Friscb, Austrian diplomatist, 346
Fronde, the, 130
Fronlay, the Bailli de, 343
Fuchs, Paul Ton, Brandenburg statesman, 8
Fiinen, serfdom in, 736
Fuenterrabia, captured by the French, 34
Fiirst, Earl Joseph Maximilian, Baron von,
Prussian High Chancellor of Justice, 715;
728
Furstenbund, the, 708 sq.
Fiirth, Austrian allies at, 263
Fussen, Treaty of, 242
Fulta, fugitives at, 552
Fumes, ceded to France, 339
Fyzabad, British troops at, 579
Gabriel, Don, Infant of Spain, 381 sq.
Gahler, Peter Ellas, Danish general, 745
Gaeta, 153
Gages, Jean Bonaventure Dumont, Count,
Spanish general, 160 ; 165 ; 362 ; 596 ;
608
Galgengrund, Bussians at the, 284 sq.
Galieia, Joseph II visits, 626 ; 648 ; 669 ;
703 ; Frederick the Great and, 707
Galileo Galilei, 792
Galitsin, Prince Alexander, Bussian states-
man, 682 ; 697
Prince Alexis, Bussian ambassador to
England, 323 ; 328
Prince Dmitri, Bussian statesman, 697
family, persecution of, 302
Galuzzi, Biguccio, Tuscan historian, 150
Galvez, Don Bernardo, Governor of
Louisiana, 377 ; 453
Gambia, river, 464
Ganges river, the Dutch on, 556
Gardiner, James, colonel of
112; 114
Luke, and Protection in Ireland,
502 sq.
Garielevna, Countess Anna, 315
Garriok, David, and Whitefleld, 84
Gee, Joshua, political economist, 50
Gefle, Biksdag at, 784
Gelders, 27 ; 300 ; Austria and, 631
Geneva, 617 ; party conflicts in, 625
Genoa, John Law in, 169 ; 243 ; taken by
the Austrians, 245 ; and Corsica, 350,
609 ; siege of, 362 ; and the Jesuits,
593 ; 606 ; affairs in, 607 sq.
Gulf of, Admiral Mathews in, 239
Genovesi, Neapolitan lawyer, 588; 590 ; 699
George I, Eing of Great Britain, and the
Hanoverian Succession, Chapter I; char-
acter of, 41 sq. ; Walpole and, 42; 43; 57 ;
and the Earl of Mar, 97 ; and Spain, 123 ;
and Gibraltar, 126, 147; and Dubois,
131 ; 141 ; 143 ; and Poland, 193 ; and
Prussia, 209 ; 218 ; 445
II, Eing of Great Britain, 2 sqq.
created Duke of Cambridge, 10; 12 sqq.,
19; 39 sq.; character of, 41 sq.; Walpole
and, 42, 395 ; the Civil List of, 45 ; 55 ;
61 ; and Pitt, 73 sq. ; 106 ; at Dettingen!
109 ; 143 ; 147 ; and Don Carlos, 151 :
179 ; and Prussia, 209 ; and the War of
the Austrian Succession, 232 ; 235 ; 237
and the election of Francis I, 242 ; 243
and Prance, 249 ; 251 sq. ; 260 ; and the
Convention of Elosterzeven, 266 ; 272 ;
and Hanover, 334, 405; 340; and the
Prussian Alliance, 399 ; and Pitt's acces-
sion to office, 403; and Irish affairs,
488 sq. ; death of, 416
m, Eing of Great Britain, 117 ; and
Pitt, 346, 419 sq. ; accession of, 416;
views of, 417 ; character of, 423 ; 425 ;
and Bute, 427 ; 428 ; sends for Pitt, 430 ;
and Wilkes, 430 sq., 441 sq. ; and the
Act, 434; 435 sq.; 443; 445;
992
Index.
and the American Colonies, 449, 462 sq,;
and the Bockingham Ministry, 497 sqoL. ;
463 ; and the India BiU, 467, S81 ; dis-
misBes Foz and North, 467 ; supports
Pitt, 469 ; and the Prince of Wales, 472 ;
illness and recovery of, 473 sqq. ; and the
army and navy, 476 ; and Ireland, 497,
500 ; insanity of, 505 ; and Frederick the
Great, 702; and the Ktrsterafttrnd, 708 sq. ;
743; and Queen Matilda, 750 sq.; 819
George IV, King of Great Britain (Prince of
Wales), 117 ; and the India BiU (1783),
467 ; 471 ; marriage of, 472 ; and the
Eegenoy Bill, 473 sq.; 475; the Irish
Parliament and, 505
Prince of Denmark, death of, 12
Georgia (America), 51; foundation of, 54sq.;
66 ; the Wesleys in, 82; 83 ; 149
(Europe), Eussia and, 648, 672, 676
Oeraldino, Don. See Fitzgerald, Sir
Thomas
Germain, George Sackville. See Sackville,
Viscount
Germany, the Bomantic movement in.
Chapter XXIV passim ; 21; 33 sq.; 143;
Fleury and, ISO ; 159 ; 207 ; and the rise
of Prussia, 209 ; 210 ; 213 ; mercantile
policy in, 225 ; Pietism in, 226 ; 237 ;
and the Union of Frankfort, 240 ; and
the Pragmatic Sanction, 244 ; 250 sq. ;
254 sq. ; Treaty of Westminster and, 320';
343; Denmark and, 741
Germersheim, Charles of Lorraine at, 240
Gesner, Conrad, Swiss writer, 625
Gewitsch, Field-marshal Daun at, 277 sq.
Ghent, 248 ; seized by the Belgians, 652
Gheria, pirate stronghold, 531
Giacinto, Corsican leader, 609
Gianni, Tuscan minister, 602
Giannone, Pietro, Keapolitan historian,
588 sq.; 594
Gibbon, Edward, historian, 887
Gibraltar, Alberoni and, 31; 35; 38 sq.;
57 sq. ; siege of, 59, 145, 376, 379 sq. ;
452 ; the Treaty of Seville and, 60 ; 63 ;
65; British fleet at, 68; George I and,
126; Spain and, 138 sqq.; 147 sqq.; 157;
Admiral Haddock at, 236 ; 239 ; 350; 365 ;
376; secret negotiations about, 377 sq.;
381; 464
Gingi, fortress of, 539
Giudice, Cardinal, 123
Glasgow, 99; the Malt Tax riot in, 107
115; and Irish trade, 496
Glatz, 229 ; ceded to Prussia, 235, 244
242; and the Peace of Aix-la-Chapelle,
249 ; 279 ; capitulates, 294 ; 297 sq. ; re-
gained by Prussia, 300 ; 326 ; 339 sq.
632
Glenfinnan, Prince Charles in, 112
Glenshiel, Pass of, Jacobites in, 106
Glogau, 229 sq.; Kyau's retreat to, 274 ; 275
Gloucester, William, Duke of, 6 ; 8
William Henry, Duke of, marriage
of, 445
Godard, Thomas, Indian general, 576
Godeheu, Director of the French East
India Company, 542 sqq.
Oodolphin, Sidney Godolphin, first Earl of,
Godwin, William, writer,, 836
GorUtz, 264; 268; 274; Austrian army in,
282 ; 289 sqq.
GOrtz, Baron George Henrik, Swedish
Btatesfiian, 26 sqq. ; execution of, 34 ; 104
Gateborg, 755 ; 779 sq.
Goethe, Johann Wollgang von, 824; 826
sqq. ; 832 sqq.
Gotter, Baron, Prussian envoy to Vienna,
229
Gottingen, evacuation of, 426
Ooezman, Louis-Valentin, and Beau-
marchais, 358
Golconda, Shah Jeh&n and, 518 ; 519 ; 520 ;
521 ; captured by Aurnngzeb, 522
Gold Coast, trade with, 187
Goldbach, secretary to Bestuzheff, 317
Golden Fleece, Order of the, 140
Goldoni, Carlo, Italian dramatist, 606
Goldsmith, Oliver, 828; 833
Golovkin, Gabriel Ivanovich, Count, Bussian
Grand Chancellor, 303
Goodrich, Sir John, British ambassador in
Sweden, 770
Goodwin, John, works of, burnt at Oxford,
807
Gordon Castle, Jacobite rising at, 98
Admiral, at Danzig, 197
Alexander, of Auchintoul, Jacobite
general, 108
Alexander Gordon, second Duke of
(Marquis of Huntly), 98 ; 102
Lord George, 455
Lord Lewis, Jacobite, 115
Goree, 347; 428; 452; ceded to France,
464
Gorgast, Prussian army at, 280
Gotha, army at, 265 ; 266 ; 270
Gottorp, House of, 736; 741
Gower, Earl. See Stafford, Marquis of
Gratz, seminary at, 637
Grafton, Charles Fitzroy, second Duke of.
Lord-lieutenant of Ireland, 485
Augustus Henry Fitzroy, third Duke
of, 415; 424; 431; 435 sqq.; and the
East' India Company, 438 ; 439 ; 442 ;
444 ; resigns, 447 ; 448 sq. ; Lord Privy
Seal, 457 ; 469 ; 463 ; 467
Grain Coast, trade with, 187
Granada, Philip V at, 166
Granby, John Manners, Marquis of, 426;
434 ; Commander-in-chief, 437 ; 439 ; 442
Grant, Major-general, at St Lucia, 451
Grantham, Thomas Bobinson, Lord^ 75;
149 ; Secretary of State, 462
Grantley, Fletcher Norton, Lord, Speaker
of the House of Commons, 443 ; 455
Granville, John Carteret, Earl (Lord Car-
teret), at Stockholm, 36 sq. ; 39 ; 44 ; 71 ;
enters the Cabinet, 73 ; 74 sq. ; succeeds
Index.
993
Walpole,235; 238; 394; 396; 405; 417;
and Pitt, 420; 424; Lord-lieutenant of
Ireland, 485; death of, 428
Grasse-Tilly, Franpois-Joseph-Paul, Mar-
quis de, French admiral, 453 sq. ; 462
Grattan, Henry, 458 sq. ; 474 ; 494 ; 496 ;
and Irish trade, 497 ; and Irish Independ-
ence, 498 sqq. ; 502 ; 504 sq.
Gravelines, the Old Pretender lands at, 103
Graves, Thomas Graves, Lord, admiral,
453
Gray, Thomas, poet, 825; 828; 830
Gray's Mill, Prince Charles at, 112
Great Britain, under George I, Chapter I ;
in the age of Walpole and the Pelhams,
Chapter II ; Jacobitism and the Union in.
Chapter III ; and the Seven Tears' War,
Chapter IX, passim; and the "Beversal
of Alliances, ' Chapter XI passim ; 1756-
93, Chapter XIII ; and India, Chapter XV
(2) and (3) ; and France and Spain,
123 sqq. ; 126 ; and Spain, 138, 142,
146 sq., 149, 155, 158, 328, 364 sqq., 370,
373, 376 sqq. ; and the Alliance of Han-
over, 141 ; and the marriage of Louis XV,
143 sq. ; 150 sq. ; 157 ; and the French
Jacobites, 159 sq. ; 163 ; and the South
Sea Company, 178 sqq. ; and America,
183 ; and the West Indies, 184 sqq. ; and
the slave trade, 187 sq. ; 190 ; and the
Pragmatic Sanction, 202 sq. ; 206 sq. ;
and Prussia, 209, 708 sq. ; Frederick
WiUiam I and, 212; 217 sq. ; and the
Austrian Succession, 228 sq. ; 231 ; 235 ;
and the Second Family Compact, 289;
243; 245; and the Netherlands, 246,
248; 249 sq. ; Bussia and, 314 sq.,
317 sqq., 321, 323, 325; and Corsica,
350, 609 sq. ; 363 ; and the American
revolt, 375 ; 383 ; and Naples, 596 ; and
the Mediterranean, 608; 640; and the
navigation of the Scheldt, 642, 644 ; and
the Eusso-Turkish War, 673, 676 sq.;
703; 723; 725; and Denmark, 741,
743 sq., 754, 756 ; Sweden and, 759, 779,
782 sq.
Great Fish river, 189
Greenland, whale fisheries of, 49, 181
Greenshields, James, and tiie Book of
Common Prayer, 94
Greifswald, Treaty of, 26
Greig, Sir Samuel, Bussian admiral, 673
Grenada, 185 sq. ; 346 ; British occupation
of, 426; ceded to Great Britain, 428;
452 ; 464
Grenadines, the, ceded to Great Britain,
428
Grenville, George, statesman, 424 sqq.;
and Prussia, 427; 428; succeeds Bute,
430 ; 431 ; 434 ; and John Wilkes, 441 ;
442; death of, 443
James, joint Vice-treasurer of Ire-
land, 437
Thomas, mission of, to Paris, 461
Grey, Charles Grey, second Earl, 472 ; 476
C. M. H. VI.
Grey, William de. See Walsingham, Lord
Greyerz, and Freiburg, 625
Gribeauval, Jean-Baptiste Vaquette de,
French general, 849
GrifSn, Thomas, admiral, 538
Grimaldo, Marquis de, Spanish Minister of
Foreign Affairs, 186 sq. ; 189; 142;
145; at Paris, 368, 370; 371; retires,
374; 875
Grimm, Friedrioh Melchior, Barou, and
Catharine II, 678, 698 sq.
Grisons, canton of, 614
Gross, Bussian resident at Berlin, 319
Gross-Henuersdorf, Austrians repulsed at,
244
Gross-Jagerndorf, battle of, 264, 322
Gross-Kamin, Prussian troops at, 281 sq. ;
285 sq.
Grote, Baron Thomas von, Hanoverian
envoy in London, 14
Grumbkow, General von, Prussian states-
man, 210 sqq.
Guadalajara, cloth factory at, 139
Guadaloupe, ceded to France, 428
Guadarama, canal of, 383
Gualterio, Cardinal, Jacobite agent at
Eome, 97
Guastalla, French victory at, 154 ; 366
Guben, Frederick the Great at, 288
Guiana, 351
Guichen, Count de, French naval officer,
453
Guilfprd, Frederick North, second Earl of
(Lord North), 377 sq. ; 380 ; 427 ; 431
joint Paymaster of the Forces, 437 ; Chan
cellor of the Exchequer, 438 ; 439 ; 442
and the East India Company, 445, 570 sq.
and America, 447 ; 450 ; and Ireland, 455
resigns, 456 ; 457 sq. ; 460 sq. ; 463
Home Secretary, 464 ; 465 sq. ; dismissed,
467 ; 468 ; and Irish affairs, 495, 498 sq.
501; 581
Guinea Coast, and the slave trade, 187
Company (French), 173, 533
Gnipuzcoa, fishermen of, 344
Guldberg, Ove Hbegh, Danish statesman,
735; 749 sqq.; 754; fall of, 755; 756
Gum Coast, trade with, 187
Gustavus I Vasa, King of Sweden, 771
779
II Adolphus, King of Sweden, 622
761; 768
Ill, King of Sweden, Chapter XXII
354; visits France, 358; 676; and
Catharine II, 678; marriage of, 741
753 sqq.
Gnzerat, annexed by the Emperor Akbar,
512
Gwalior, captured, 576
GyHenborg, Carl, Count, Swedish minister
in London, 27 ; 104 ; 759
Haddington, Cope at, 113
Haddock, Nicholas, admiral, 66 sq. ; 157 ;
236
63
994
Index.
Hadik, Count, Austrian Field-marshal, 268 ;
292 sq.
Hafiz Behmat Ehan, Bohilla chief, 569 sq.
Hagelburg redoubt, 197
Hague, the, George I at, 18; 26; 324;
conference at (1760), 343
Haguenan, Coigui's troops in, 240
Haidar&bad, kingdom of, founded, 524,
532 ; the French at, 540 ; 541 ; Bussy at,
643; 546; 567
Nizam of, 567
Haidar Ali, ruler of Mysore, 549 ; 567 ; 576;
death of, 469, 577
Hainanlt, Estates of, 652
Hainspaoh, Prince Henry of Prussia at,
705
Hakim, Mirza, son of the Bmperor Hum&-
yun, 512
Halberstadt, taxation in, 221 ; Prussian
forces near, 265 ; 266 ; 267 ; 269 ; 339
Halifax, Charles Montagu, first Earl of,
12 ; 45 ; 56
George Montagu Dunk, second Earl
of, 424; 425; First Lord of the Ad-
miralty, 427; 428; 430; and John
Wilkes, 432 ; and the Begency Act, 484 ;
442; Lord-lieutenant of Ireland, 489,
492; death of, 444
Halle, 216 ; University of, 226 ; 295
Haller, Albrecht von, Swiss scholar, 625 ;
827
Hamilton, James Douglas, fourth Duke of,
92 sq.
Count, General, in Pomerania, 280 ;
287
Sir WiUiam, 811
Hamilton's Horse, 112; 114
Hamm, taxation in, 221
Hanau, Pragmatic army at, 238
Handasyde, Lieutenant-general, - in Scot-
laud, 114 sq,
Handel, George Frederick, 19 ; 43
Hanover, Chapter I passim ; 73 ; and
Mecklenburg, 206; 207; 213; and the
War of the Austrian Succession, 231 sq. ;
235 ; and the Convention of Westminster,
251, 254 ; 252 ; 260 ; and the Seven Years'
War, 263, 323; the French in, 266; 318;
France and, 334 ; Austria and, 855 ; 339
sq. ; 405 ; Pitt and, 407 sq. ; George III
and, 416 ; 703 ; Alliance of, 69, 141, 147,
395 ; Convention of, 243
Ernest Augustus, Elector of, 2 sqq. ;
6; 19
George Lewis, Elector of. See
George I, King of Great Britain
Sophia, Eleotress of, 1 sqq. ; char-
acter of, 5 ; and the English Succession, 6
sqq. ; 12 ; death of, 17 ; 18 sqq.
Harcourt, Simon Haroourt, first Viacomut,
Lord Chancellor, 16; 18
Simon Harcourt, first Earl, Lord-
lieutenant of Ireland, 494 sq.
Hardenberg, Charles Augustus, Prince of,
728
Hardwicke, Philip Yorke, first Earl of, 75 ;
404 ; 407 ; 424 sqq. ; and Prussia, 427 ;
428; 435
Hardy, Sir Charles, the younger, admiral,
376 ; 452
Harley, Eobert, Earl of Oxford. See
Oxford
Thomas, missions of, to Hanover,
13 sqq.
Harneca, Dutch banking house of, 769
Harrach, Count Joseph, President of the
Imperial War Council, 204
Harrington, James, Oceana, 796 sq. ; 801 ;
813 ; 820
William Stanhope, first Earl of, at
Madrid, 32, 58 ; 61 ; 124 ; 126 ; 141 sq. ;
145; 149
Harris, Sir James. See Malmesbury, first
Earl of
Harrison, Thomas, regicide, 799
Harsch, Austrian Quarter-master-general,
289 sq.
Hartington, Marquis of. See Devonshire,
fourth Duke of
Harvey, William, physiologist, 792
Hasselt, the AUies at, 246
Hastenbeck, battle of, 263, 841
Hastings, Warren, Governor-general of
India, 445 ; 465 sq. ; 471 ; 559 sq.; 564 ;
Indian career of, 566 sqq.
Hats and Caps, the, in Sweden, Chapter
XXII
Hattorf, Philip von, Hanoverian Minister,
20
Haugwitz, Count Friedrich Wilhelm, Chan-
cellor of Bohemia and Austria, 639
Havana, 64 ; 142 ; 346 ; capture of, 369,
426 ; restored to Spain, 370 ; 428 sq. ;
453
Havelberg, Treaty of, 206
Havelland, drainage of, 225
Hawick, Jacobite force at, 101
Hawke, Edward Hawke, Lord, 248 ; 250 ;
First Lord of the Admiralty, 437 ; 444
Hawkins, Sir Bichard, naval commander,
516
Hawley, Henry, Lieutenant-general, in
Scotland, 115
Hayd, Khevenhiiller's force at, 235
Heathfield, George Augustus Eliott, Lord,
379 sq. ; 452
Hegel, Georg Wilhehn Friedrich, 827; 836
Heidegger, John Conradin, Burgomaster
of Zurich, 615 sq.
Heinsius, Anton, Grand Pensionary of
Holland, 31 ; death of, 32
Helsingfors, 761 ; Gustavus IH at, 778
Helvetic Society, 625
Helv^tiuB, Glaude-Adrien, French philo-
sopher, 826
Henley, Eobert. See Northington, Earl of
Henry IV, King of France, 612
Prince of Prussia, in the Seven Years'
War, 262, 267 sq., 277, 279, 287 sqq.,
297 sq. ; victory of, at Freiburg, 299 ;
Index.
996
324; 326; 357; 632; and Catharine II,
678 ; 696 ; in Saxony, 703 ; 705 sq. ; 730 ;
at St l^etersburg, 668 sqq., 731 ; 732 sqq.
Henry Frederick, Duke of Cumberland.
See Cumberland
fienzi, Samuel, Swiss revolutionary, 625
Herbert of Cherbury, Edward Herbert,
Lord, 791
Herculaneum, discovery of, 596 ; 600
Herder, Johann Gottfried, 827 ; 830 ; 832
Herrenhausen, Alliance of, 59
Hermhut, John Wesley at, 82
Hertzberg, Count Ewald Friedrich von,
Prussian Foreign Minister, 346 ; 648 ;
707 ; 709 ; 734
Herzen, Alexander, and the Memoirs of
Catharine II, 658
Hesse-Cassel, 240; 242 ; the Convention of
Westminster and, 254; 447
Landgrave Charles of, 28 ; 59
Landgrave Frederick II of, 425
Landgrave William VIII of, 266
Prince Charles of, 743; 755;
779 sq.
Hexham, General Wade at, 114
Heylin, Peter, ecclesiastical writer, 798 sq.
Higgins, Dr, physician to Philip V of
Spain, 145
Hildesheim, Bishop of, 254
Hillsborough, Viscount. See Downshire,
Marquis of
Hirsohberg, linen industry at, 721
Hoadly, John, Archbishop of Armagh, 488
Hobbes, Thomas, Chapter XXIII passim
Hochkirch, 271 ; battle of, 289 sqq.
Hochstadt, battle of, 267
Hopken, Baron Daniel Niklas von, Swedish
statesman, 769
Count Anders Johan von, Swedish
Chancellor, 762
Hoglaud, Isle of, battle oft, 778
Hohenelbe, Austrian army at, 706
Hohenfriedberg, Austrians repulsed at, 242
Holbach, Paul Henri Thyry, Baron de, 826
Holberg, Ludwig, Baron von, Danish
historian, 739
Hoick, Count Oonrad, and Christian VII,
744; 746
Holdernesse, Bobert D'Aicy, fourth Earl
of, 406; 409; 417; 425; and Indian
afiairs, 542
Holland (see also United Provinces), 21
23 ; Treaty of, with Great Britain, 25
26 sq. ; 29 ; trade of, with England, 50
and the Hanover Alliance, 59 ; 60 ; 124
and the West Indies, 186; 187 ; and the
Pragmatic Sanction, 202; 217; 246;
248 ; 308 ; 318 ; and Brazil, 389 ; 407 ;
and the American trade, 448 ; and India,
546 ; 555 sq. ; King Theodore of Corsica
in, 609; 640; 703; Prussian intervention
in, 709 ; 724 ; 773 ; Goldsmith and, 828
Henry Pox, Lord, 75 ; 403 sqq. ;
423; 424; 428; created Lord Holland,
429; 435
Holland, Henry Bichard Vassall Pox, Lord,
472
Holstein (see also Sohleswig-Holstein), 736;
744
Holstein-Gottorp, House of, 741 sqq.,
761 sq.
Adolphus Frederick, Duke of.
See Adolphus Frederick, King of Sweden
Anna Petrovua, Duchess of,
311, 658
Prince Carl August of, 657 sqq.
Charles Frederick, Duke of,
28 ; 37 ; 39 ; 741
Princess Johanna, Elizabeth of.
See Anhalt-Zerbst, Princess Elizabeth of
Holwell, John Zephaniah, Governor of
Bengal, 552 ; 559
Holyrood, James VIII proclaimed at, 113
Honduras, 64; disputes in, 66; foundation
of, 183; 365; 367; British rights in,
370; 377; 380; 429; logwood cutting
in, 464, 471
Hontheim, Johann Nikolaus von (Justinus
Febronius), 636 .
Hood, Samuel Hood, first Viscount Hood,
admiral, 453 sq.
Hooghly, sack of, 532 ; taken by the Eng-
lish, 552 ; 556
Hooke, Nathaniel, French agent in Scotland,
91 sq.
Hooker, Bichard, 795 ; 801
Horn, Count Arvid Bernhard, Swedish
Chancellor, 759 sq.
Home, John. See Tooke, John Home .
Horton, Anne {nee Luttreiy, marries the
Duke of* Cumberland, 445
Hosier, Francis, admiral, 60 ; 142 ; 147
Hotham, Sir Charles, British envoy at
Berlin, 210 sqq.
William Hotham, Lord, admiral, 451
Howe, Bichard Howe, Earl, admiral, 379
sq. ; 448 ; retires, 451 ; 452 ; First Lord
of the Admiralty, 468
Hubertusburg, Peace of, 300, 346, 428, 430,
663, 702, 710, 713, 715, 720, 725, 729
Hudson, Michael, royalist divine, 798
Hudson's Bay Company, 179
Huescar, Duke of, mission of, to Paris,
161; 364
Hughes, Sir Edward, admiral, 454 ; 469 ;
577
Hugo, Victor, 828; 831 sq. ; 834
Huguenots, persecution of, 163 ; 188
Humayun, Moghul Emperor, 507; 510 sq.;
514
Hume, David, 589 ; 817 ; Essays on
Political Questions, 819 sqq.
Hjmgary , Hanoverian troops in, 4 ; 30 sq. ;
and the Pragmatic Sanction, 201 ; 204 ;
and Austria, 250 ; Frederick the Great
and, 277 ; Turkish victories in, 307 ;
507; Joseph II and, 626 sq., 653 sq. ;
insurrection in, 628 ; 655 ; 710
Huntly, Marquis of. See Gordon, second
Duke of
63—2
996
Index.
Hussey, Thomas, Boman Catholic Bishop of
Waterford and Lismore, 377 sq.
HuBsula, Swedish meeting at, 778
Huxelles, Nicolas du B16, Marquis de,
marshal of France, 31 ; 129 ; 146
Huy, capture of, 247
Ibrahim Lodi, Sultan, 608 sq.
ile Boyale, Settlement of, 133
Uten, Jobst Hermann yon, Hanoverian
statesman, 20
Impey, Sir Elijah, Chief Justice of Bengal,
466; trial of, 471; 868; 571; and Nun-
comar, 573, 583
In Coena Domini, Bull, 637
Inchbald, Elizabeth, novelist, 836
India, the Moghul Empire, Chapter XV (1) ;
the English and French in (1720-63),Ohap-
ter XV (2) ; Clive and Warren Hastings
in. Chapter XV (3) ; 51; 299 ; French and
Enghsh rivalry in, 332; 347; 350; the
Franco-British war In, 454 ; 465 ; Fox's
Bill, 466 sq. ; Pitt's first BiU, 468 ; 469 ;
Pitt's second Bill, 470 ; 475 ; 643
Indies Company. See Perpetual Company
Ingolstadt, 233 ; 237 ; faU of, 238
Ingria, Bussia and, 206
Iimerrhodeu, the Snter afialr at, 625
Innocent XII (Antonio Pignatelli), Pope,
586
Xm (Michele Angelo Conti), Pope,
131; 587
Innsbruck, 37 ; seminary at, 637
Innviertel, the, 707
Inveraray, Jacobites at, 99 sq. <
Inverness, Jacobite rising at, 98 ; 100 sqq. ,
105 ; Cope at, 112 ; 115 sq.
Irakli, Prince of Georgia, 676
Ireland, in the eighteenth century. Chapter
XIV ; 52 ; reinforcements drawn from,
99, 100 ; 455 sq. ; disturbed condition of,
457 ; the Parliament in, 458 sq. ; 470 ;
the Begency Bill in, 474; 476
Iroquois Indians, 412
Islay, Earl of. See Argyll, third Duke of
Isle of France. See Mauritius
Ismail, Bussian capture of, 673
Ismailovo, Bussian royal residence, 302
Istria, Venetian, 648
Italy, and the Papacy, Chapter XVI; Austria
and, 21, 203 sq.; Alberoni and, 25; 32;
the Old Pretender in, 104, 109 ; Duke of
Orleans in, 120 sq. ; Spanish claims in,
122, 138 sqq., 147 ; 143 ; Imperial troops
in, 149 ; Don .Carlos in, 150 ; 152 ; war
in, 153 sq.; 158 sq. ; 167; War of the
Austrian Succession in, 236; 239; 243
end of the war in, 245 sq. ; 247 sqq.
331 ; the Treaty of Aranjuez and, 363
626; the Eomantic movement in, 822!
824, 830 sq.
Ivan VI, Tear, accession of, 309 ; 311 j 316
Ivory Coast, trade with, 187
Jagerndorf, duchy of, 229; 230
Jagello, House of, 198
Jamaica, smuggling in, 64, 351 ; Maroons
of, 185; England and, 186 ; 379; opened
to foreign shipping, 436 ; 453 sq.
James I, King of England, Trtte Law of
Free Monarchy, 803
H, King of England, 6; 9; 43;
abdication of, 794 sq., 808; 816
James Francis Edward Stewart, Prince of
Wales (the Old Pretender), 6 ; 16 ; 21 sq. ;
26 ; iUness of, 27 ; 30 ; Alberoni and, 31 ;
57 ; at Saint-Germain, 91 ; sails from
Dunkirk, 92 sq. ; 96 ; relations of, with
the Powers, 97; and the Earl of Mar's
rising, 98 ; in Scotland, 102 sq. ; in Italy,
104 ; marriage of, 106 ; 106 ; 109 sqq. ;
113 ; 117 ; the Begent Orleans and, 123 ;
and Dubois, 131 ; 142 ; 289 ; death of, 118
Jansenists, 163 ; the Parlement and, 347 ;
587 sq. ; 690 sq. ; and the fall of the
Jesuits, 695
Jaromircz, Austrian army at, 705
Jassy, 308; Treaty of, 676
Jay, John, American statesman, 461
Jedburgh, Jacobites at, 101
JefEeryes, James, Captain, mission of, to
St Petersburg, 34
Jeffreys, George, Lord Chief Justice, 805
Jefremoff, Major-general, at Zorndorf, 281
Jehangir, Moghul Emperor, 515 sqq. ; death
of, 517
Jenkins, Bobert, English mariner, 48; 64;
66; 149; 157
Jenkinson, Charles. See Liverpool, first
Earl of
Jersey, French attacks on, 452
Jesuits, the, in France, 121, 127 ; Frederick
William I and, 208 ; expelled from France,
348, 692; in Paraguay, 364; in Spain,
383 ; in Paraguay and Portugal, 386 sq.;
in Brazil, 390, 392 ; expelled from Spain,
Portugal, and France, 372; the Papacy
and, 591 sq. ; expelled from Spain and
Naples, 593 ; expelled from Parma, 594 ;
suppressed by Clement XIV, 595; in
Poland, 671; Catharine II and, 693;
Frederick the Great and, 721; 806
Jews, the Indemnity Acts and, 44 ; Frederick
William I and, 208 ; in Naples, 599 ; in
Austria, 636 ; in Prussia, 711
John II Caslmir, King of Poland, 664
HI Sobieski, King of Poland, 105 ;
191 sq.
rv. King of Portugal, 389
V, King of Portugal, death of, 384
VI, King of Portugal, marriage of,
381 ; becomes Begent, 388
Johnson, Samuel, 84; 610; works of,
burnt at Oxford, 807
Johnstone, George, Commodore, 377 sq ;
454 ; 565
Jones, Griffith, Welsh divine, 81
John Paul, naval adventurer, 449
Jos6, Dom, son of Pedro III of Portugal,
388
Index.
997
Joseph I, Emperor, 97; 201; 586
II, Emperor, Chapter XVIII; 346 j
354 sq.; 470; and Clement XIV, 594;
600; and Tuscany, 601; 603; and
Switzerland, 616 ; 664 ; and Poland, 668
sq. ; and Catharine II, 675, 678, 708;
676; 703; in Bohemia, 704; and the
War of the Bavarian Suooession, 705 sq. ;
and the Austrian Netherlands, 710 ; 731 ;
death of, 654
I, King of Portugal, 166 ; 368 ; reign
of, 384 sqq. ; death of, 375, 388
Jovellanos, Gaspar Melohior de, Spanish
playwright, 823
Jaryeuse EntrSe, 651 sq.
Jiilich, and the War of the Austrian Suooes-
sion, 231 ; 339
JiiUch-Oleves-Berg, partition of, 231
Juliana Maria, Queen of Frederick V of
, Denmark, 746 ; 749 sqq. ; 754
Jungbunzlau, Austrian magazine at, 257
Junius, Letters of, 441
Jutland, agricultural condition of, 737
Eabardia (Eabardine district), 304 ; acquired
by Bussia, 674
Kabul, the Emperor B&bar at, 509; 510;
occupied by Humiyun, 511; 512; 517;
Shah Jehan's army at, 518; 524; 527
Eaffa, Crimean port, 305
Kalb, French agent in America, 352
Kalinjar, Sher Shah killed at, 511
Kalkstein, Prussian general, 230
Kaltenborn, Budolph Wilhelm von. Letters
of an old Prussian Officer, 713
Kamran, son of the Emperor B&bar, 510
sq.
Kandahar, reduction of, by B&bar, 509;
511 ; taken from the Persians, 512 ; 518 ;
lost to the Moghuls, 519 ; 524 ; 527
Kant, Immanuel, writings of, 727 sq. ; 825
sqq.; 834 sq.; 837
Earikal, France and, 347, 464, 533
Karlskroua, 28 ; new docks at, 775 sq.
Easimbazar, factory of, seized, 551 ; 553
Kashmir, conquered by the Emperor Hum&-
yun, 511 ; 512 ; 524
Katharina Alezeievna, Grand Duchess of
Bussia. See Catharine II, Tsarina
Katt, de, reader to Frederick the Great, 281 ;
290
Katte, Hans Hermann von, Prussian officer,
212
Kaunitz, Wenzel Anton, Prince von, Aus-
trian Chancellor, 249 ; 252 sqq. ; and
the Franco-Austrian alliance, 320, 331,
335 sqq., 400 sq. ; 341 sqq. ; and Prussia,
398 sq., 647 sq., 656, 702 ; rejects British
overtures, 427 ; 615 sq. ; and Joseph II,
627; 628; and Bussia, 629 sq. ; 631; 633;
and the Turkish alliance, 634; 635; 639;
and the United Provinces, 640; and
Antwerp, 642; 651; 654 sq. ; 670; and
Frederick the Great, 708; 783
Kay, Prussian defeat at, 292, 324
Kayserling, Count, Bussian minister at
Warsaw, 200; 667
Keats, John, 830, 834 sq.
Keeue, Sir Benjamin, English ambassador
at Madrid, 6S sqq. ; 146 sq. ; 149 ; 155 ;
157 ; and Patino, 166 ; 167 ; 363 sq. ;
death of, 365
Keith, James Francis Edward (Marshal
Keith), 105; at Prague, 269; 280;
306 sq. ; death of, 289
Bobert Murray, Colonel, English
minister at Copenhagen, 737 ; 750
EeUie, Alexander Erskine, fifth Earl of,
117
Kelly, George, Jacobite, 111
Kelso, Jacobites at, 99, 101
Kendal, Jacobite force at, 101
Ehrengard Melusina von Schulen-
burg. Duchess of, 19 ; 484
Keumure, William Gordon, sixth Viscount,
101; 103
Eeppel, Augustus Keppel, first Viscount,
admiral, 437 ; 450 sq. ; 462 ; resigns,
463 ; First Lord of the Admiralty, 464
Ker, John, of Kersland, 92
Kerch, Bussia and, 634, 673 sq.
Kerjean, de, French officer in India, 541
Kesselsdorf, Prussian victory at, 244
Khan Jeh^n Lodi, Afghan commander, 517
Kharram, Prince. See Shah Jehan
Kherson, arsenal of, 648
Khevenhliller, Ludwig Andreas, Count,
Austrian Field-marshal, 233 sqq. ; 236
Khusru, son of the Emperor Jehangir, 515
Kiel, University of, 753
Kiehnannsegge, Baron von. Master of the
Horse, 20
Baroness Sophia Charlotte von. See
Darlington, Countess of
Kildare, Earl of. See Leinster, first Duke
of
Killiecrankie, Pass of, 116
Kilmarnock, William Boyd, fourth Earl of,
114; 117
Kilpatrick, John, Major, 541 ; at Flassey,
554 sq.
Kinbuck, Jacobite force at, 100
Kinbum, 305 ; acquired by Bussia, 674
King, WilUam, Archbishop of Dublin,
481 sq. ; 486 sq.
Kingswood, Whitefield at, 83
Kinsky, Franpois Ferdinand, Count, Chan-
cellor of Bohemia, 204
Klein-Schnellendorf, Convention of, 232Bq. ;
235
Kleist, von, of Zeblin, 217 •
Heinrich von, German dramatic
poet, 827
Klopstock, Friedrich Gottlieb, German
poet, 741; 754
Kloster-Griissau, Silesian army at, 280
Klosterzeven, Convention of, 263 sq., 266,
272; battle of, 341
Knight, cashier of the South Sea Company,
181
998
Index.
Enox, Indian officer, defeats Shah Alam,
559
Knyphausen, Baron Dodo Heinrioh von,
328 ; Prussian ambassador in Paris, 338
Baron Friedrioh Ernst von, Prussian
envoy at Stockholm, 86
Eoch, Baron, private secretary to the
Empress Maria Theresa, 252
Koniggratz, 242 ; 257 ; Frederick the Great
at, 279 ; 705
Eonigsberg, Stanislaus Leszozyuski at,
197; 264
Konigsegg, Lothaire Joseph Georg, Count
von, Austrian Field-marshal, at Madrid,
142 ; 145 sq. ; 148 sq. ; in Italy, 154
Eonigsmarck, Maria Aurora, Countess von,
240
Eokoschkin, Russian brigadier, 286
Eolberg, 287 ; capture of, 297 ; 326 ; 328
Eolin, battle of, 261 sq., 263, 265, 341
EoBg.taj, Hugo, Polish writer, 671
KoUer, Colonel, Danish politician, 751
EonarsM, Stanislaus, Polish educational
reformer, 199
Eora, Shuja-ud-daula and, 563; 568; 569
Eosa Eaffirs, and white settlers, 189
Kosloff, Crimean port, 305 sq.
Erasioki, Ignatius, Polish writer, 671
Ereyenberg, von, Hanoverian resident in
London, 16
Eronborg, Queen Matilda at, 750
Eronstadt, expedition from, 673
Euban, 305 ; Eussia and, 648 ; 709
Tartars, territories of, 804
Euli Ehan. See N&dir Shah
Eunersdorf, battle of, 292 sq., 296 sq.,
324 sqq.
Eurnool, Nawib of, 541
Eutohuk-Eainardii, Treaty of, 358, 634,
674, 676, 681
Euttenberg, Prussian troops in, 284
Eutzdorf, bridge of, destroyed, 282; 285
Eyau, Baron Friedrioh Wilhelm von,
Prussian general, 274
Eymmene river, 314; Finnish boundary,
761; 778
La Bourdonnais. See Mah^ de la Bourdon-
nais
La Chalotais, Louis-Ben^ de Caradeuc de.
Attorney-general of the Parlement of
Bennes, 856
La Ch^tardie. See Ohitardie
Lacy, Maurice, Austrian Field-marshal,
626; 632; 705
Count Peter, Eussian general, 196;
308 ; 305 ; in the Crimea, 306 ; 310 ; 322
Ladoga canal, 802
La FlSohe, military school established at,
349
La Harpe, Jean-Francois de, French poet,
823
Lahore, 609 ; 517 ; 523 ; Afghan troops at,
524
Lake, Gerard Lake, Viscount, 525
Lally, Thomas Arthur, Count de, in India,
546 sqq. ; execution of, 549
La Marek, Count de, 28 ; 34 ; French
ambassador in Spain, 156 ; 157
Lamartine, Alphonse de, 832
La Mina, Marquis de, Spanish general, in
Paris, 155 sqq. ; recaUed, 158 ; 165 sq. ;
in Italy, 362
La Motte P6rouse, French brigadier, 197
Lancashire, Jacobites in, 101, 114 ; 504
Lancaster, 101 ; Prince Charles at, 115
Landor, Walter Savage, 834
Landsberg, 281 ; Euseians at, 286 ; 287 ;
291
Landshut, fight at, 294, 326
Langara, Admiral, defeated by Bodney, 376
Langholm, Jacobites at, 101
Languedoc, Spanish troops in, 159
Lansdowne, William Petty, first Marquis of
(Lord Fitzmaurice, second Earl of Shel-
burne), 380 sq. ; 425 ; President of the
Board of Trade, 480; 431; dismissed,
432 ; 436 sqq. ; and the East India Com--
pany, 438 ; resigns, 439 ; 445 ; 450 ; and
Ireland, 456 ; 467 sqq. ; ministry of,
461 sq. ; resigns, 463 ; 464 ; 466 ; created
Marquis, 467 ; 468 ; 476 ; 601 ; and
Warren Hastings, 581
La Paz, Juan Orendayn, Marquis de,
137 sq. ; 141 sq. ; 146
La Quadra. See Villarias, Marquis of
Lauban, Field-marshal Dauu at, 292
Laudon, Baron Gideon Ernst von, Austrian
Field-marshal, 271; 278; 282; 288; at
Eunersdorf, 292 sqq. ; in Silesia, 297 ;
324; 326; 828; 626; 632; 648; in
Bohemia, 704 ; 705 sq.
Lauffeldt, 248; battle of, 250, 331
Launay, de, Chief of Prussian Customs,
712 sqq. ; 720 ; 723
Lavalette, P6re, Jesuit, 348
La Yalli^re, Frau(;oise-Louise, Duchesse de,
330
Lavater, Johann Easpar, Swiss physio-
gnomist, 625
La Vauguyon, Duo de, 356
L'Averdy, OWment-Charles-Franpois de,
French Controller-general, 3S6
La ViUe, Abb6 de, 336
La VrilliSre, Due de, 358
Law, Jacques-Francois, surrenders at
Triohinopoly, 641 sq. ; 546
Jean, French commander at Easim-
bazar, 553
John, of Lauriston, 38 sq. ; 128 sqq. ;
effect of the system of, 138; character
of, 169, 177 ; the system of, 169 sqq.;
leaves France, 176 ; 182 ; and the Com-
pany of the Indies, S82 sq.
William, author of the Serious Gall,
77 sq. ; 81 ; 88
Lawrence, Stringer, Major-general, in India,
541; 548
Leach, Dryden, Wilkes' printer, 439
Lede, Marquis de, 33 ; 85
Index.
999
Le Despencer, Francis Dashwood, Lord,
424 sq. ; Chancellor of the Exohequer,
427 ; resigns, 429
Leeds, Francis Osborne, fifth Duke of
(Marquis of Carmarthen), 468
Leeward Islands, 186
Legge, Henry Bilson-, Chancellor of the
Exchequer, 425
Lehwaldt, Hans von, Prussian Commander-
in-chief, 264 ; 266 ; 273 ; 276 sq.
Leibniz, Gottfried WUhelm, Baron von,
2 sq. ; 6 ; 8 ; and the English Succession,
14, 16 sq. ; 19 ; 77
Leinster, James Fitzgerald, first Duke of
(Earl of Kildare), 488 ; 498
Leipzig, Prussian magazines at, 267 sq.,
273 • 721
Leith,' Jacobites at, 99; 112; 116
Leitmeritz, Austrian magazine at, 257
Lemierre, Antoine-Harin, French dramatist,
831
Leopold I, Emperor, and the Elector of
Hanover, 3 ; 4 ; 6 sq. ; and Switzerland,
616 ; and the succession, 201
II, Emperor (Grand Duke of
Tuscany), reign of, in Tuscany, 600
sqq.; 645; reign of, 656 sq.; 710;
783 sq.
Lesage, Alain-Eene, French novelist, 833
Leslie, Charles, non-juror, 807 ; 816
Lessing, Gotthold Ephraim, 713 ; writings
of, 823 ; 827 ; 832 sq.
Lestock, Bichard, admiral, 239
Lestooq, Armand, French physician, 311;
315
Lestwitz, General von. Governor of Breslau,
274
Letourneur, Pierre, French translator, 830
Leuthen, battle of, 275; 277; 280; 282 sq.;
291; 341; 706
Levant, the, ports of, 350
Levellers (Whiteboys), in Ireland, 490
Leven, David Melville, third Earl of, 92
Leventina, Val, and Uri, 625
Lewenhaupt, Carl Emil, Swedish general,
760 sq.
Lewis, the, Jacobites in, lOS
Lexington, battle of, 447
Leyrit, de. Governor of Pondioherry, 547
Libau, port of, 666
Lichfield, troops at, 114
Liohtervelde, Albert Ludovio de, Bishop of
Namur, 650
Liechtenstein, Prince Wenceslas (Wenzel)
von, Austrian ambassador at Paris, 228
Liefkenshoeck, fort of, 641 sqq.
Li^ge, siege of, 247 ; prince-bishopric of,
647
Liegnitz, 229; 275; battle of, 294, 295,
297, 326
Liers, attacked by the French, 247
Liftord, James Hewitt, Viscount, Lord
Chancellor of Ireland, 505
Ligne, Charles Joseph, Prince de, 697;
699
Ijgonier, John Ligonier, first Earl of, 75 ;
114 ; 248 ; 424
Liliestr&le, Joachim Vilhelm, Swedish
Viear-general, 774
LUjeucrantz, Johan, Swedish President of
Finance, 773 sq.; 776 sq.
Lille, action at, 240
Lillo, George, dramatist, 823
Limburg, duchy of, 631 ; frontiers of,
645; 647
Linares, Duke of, 361
Lindesay, Thomas, Archbishop of Armagh,
486
Linkoping, see of, 774
Linlithgow, elections in, 93 ; 115
Linz, Bavarian troops at, 232 sq. ; 277
Lippe-Biickeburg, Count William of, 369 ;
387 ; 426
Liria, Duke of, 142; Spanish ambassador
in Bussia, 145 ; 150 sq.
Lisbon, 155; 369; earthquake at, 385; 388
Lithuania, 192 ; 221 ; 664 ; 671
Liverpool, and Irish trade, 496
Charles Jenkinson, first Earl of, 424 ;
Treasurer of the Ordnance OfBce, 427 ;
429 ; 437 sq. ; Secretary at War, 450
Livonia, 35; Eussia and, 206; 207; 253;
301; 317; acquired by Eussia, 669; 694;
Sweden and, 778
Livorno, prosperity of, 600 ; 606
Livry, Abb6 de, French diplomatist, 140
Loanda, Portuguese settlement, 187
Lobkowitz, Prince George Christian, Aus-
trian Commander-in-chief, 234 sqq. ; 241 ;
308 ; in Italy, 596 sq.
Lobositz, Prussian troops in, 255 ; 257 ;
262
Lochmaben, the Old Pretender proclaimed
at, 98
Looh-na-Nuagh, 112; Prince Charles atjll7
Locke, John, 787 ; 795 ; 802 sqq. ; 807 ;
809 sqq. ; style of, 811 sq. ; 813 sqq. ;
817 sq. ; 825
Lockhart, George, of Carnwarth, 106
Lodi, Elisabeth Farnese and, 152 ; 608 ;
510
Lowendahl, General, 243 ; 247 sq.
Lowenom, Paul Vendelbo, Danish states-
man, 738
LSwenwolde, Count Carl Gustaf, Eussian
envoy to Warsaw, 194; 302
Count Frederick Casimir, Eussian
resident at Warsaw, 194 sq.
Eeinhold, Eussian officer, 302
Lombardy, 124; Alberoni in, 125; 154;
159 sqq.; 197; war in, 236; Charles
Emmanuel and, 245, 249 ; 601 sq. ; Don
Philip invades, 608; Switzerland and,
611
London, entry of George I into, 18; John
Law in, 169; 263; 333; No Popery riots
in, 455
Corresponding Society, 477
London Museum, 441
Lopukhina, KataUa, exiled to Siberia, 315
1000
Index.
Lorient, 247; arsenal at, 849
Lorraine, 62; the Old Pretender in, 96,
104 ; 155 sq. ; 158 ; 162 ; 167 ; annexed
to France, 203 ; 238 sqq.
Prince Charles of, 234 ; 237 ; in
Bavaria, 238 ; 240 ; at Dresden, 244 ; in
the Netherlands, 246 sq.; 257 sq.; at
the battle of Prague, 259 ; 262 ; 264 ; in
Silesia, 27B sqq. ; 277 ; 646
Francis, Duke of. See Francis I,
Emperor
Loudoun, John Campbell, fourth Earl of,
115 sqq. ; 426
Loughborough, Lord. See Bosslyn, first
Earl of
Louis XIII, King of France, 612
XIV, King of France, the Queen of
Bohemia and, 1 sq. ; and the Old Pre-
tender, 9, 17; and Great Britain, 22;
25; and the Jacobites, 91 sq., 97, 111,
120 sq. ; and Madame des Ursins, 122 ;
127 sq. ; 132 ; 138 ; the standing army
of, 216 ; 229 ; 239 ; 329 ; and the Varle-
ment, 347 ; 391 ; 586 ; Clement XI and,
588 ; and Switzerland, 613 sqq. ; 624 ;
640; 711; 718; death of, 97, 120
XV, King of France, 25 ; betrothal
of, 39; 63; and the Jacobites, 109 sq.,
112 sq. ; accession of, 120 sq. ; 126 sq. ;
131 sq. ; 134 ; and the Infanta, 140 ;
marriage of, 143 sq. ; dismisses Bourbon,
144; 146; illness of, 148; 152; 158;
and the Old Pretender, 159 ; Francis I
and, 160 ; 161 ; and Chauvelin, 162 sq. ;
character of, 164 ; 165 ; 194 ; and Stanis-
laus Leszczynski, 196 ; and the Austrian
Succession, 229 ; 239 ; and Maria Theresa,
243, 325, 400 sq. ; and d'Argenson, 247 ;
and Frederick the Great, 250, 266, 299,
702; and the Seven Years' War, 260;
262 ; the army of, 269 ; 303 ; 323 ; desires
peace, 327; and the death of Fleury, 329 ;
330 ; and the Peace of Aiz-la-Chapelle,
331 ; 334 ; and the Treaty of Versailles,
336 ; 338 sq. ; 340 sqq. ; and the Parle-
menu, 347, 359; and Choiseul, 349, 352;
351 ; and Austria, 353 ; 356 sqq. ; 360 ;
Charles III of Spain and, 368 ; 411 ; 546 ;
588 ; and the clericals, 591 ; and the
Jesuits, 592 ; and Switzerland, 613 ; 711;
and Sweden, 768 ; death of, 359, 616
— '- XVI, King of France, 144 ; marriage
of, 356 ; execution of, 477 ; and Switzer-
land, 616 ; Joseph II and, 681 ; and the
Scheldt dispute, 644 sq. ; 704; 782;
784
XVIII, King of France (" Monsieur"),
783 sq.
King of Spain. See Luis
Dauphin, Duke of Burgundy, 127
Dauphin, son of Louis XV, 144 ;
148; marriage of, 156, 199; 160; and
the Jesuits, 348 ; death of, 356
Louisa (Louise), Queen of Frederick William
II, 726
Louisa (Louise), Queen of Frederick V of
Denmark, 739
Dorothea, Princess, 7
Elisabeth, Duchess of Parma. See
Parma
Elisabeth, Queen of Luis of Spain,
89; 126; 137; 140
Ulrica, Queen of Adolphus Frederick
of Sweden, 668 ; 671 sq.
Louisburg, 331 ; captured, 415
Louisiana, John Law and, 172 sq. ; 183 ;
ceded to Spain, 347, 370, 422; 352;
troubles in, 373 ; 410 sqq. ; 429 ; the
Mississippi Company and, 532
Louvain, siege of, 246 ; 248 ; seminary of,
637, 649 sq.
Louville, Charles- August d'AUonville, Mar-
quis de, French envoy in Spain, 123
Lovat, Simon Fraser, Lord Lovat, 100 sq. ;
109; 117
Lubienski, Archbishop, Primate of Poland,
354
Lublin, Union of (1569), 671
Lucas, Charles, Irish patriot, 492 ; 494
Lucknow, 553 ; 572
ijiitkeman. Archdeacon, at Stockholm, 772
Luis, King of Spain (Don Luis), 126 ; 135 ;
accession of, 137 ; death of, ib. ; 138 ;
139; 146
Lund,' Gortz at, 28
Lusatia, 256 sq. ; 262 ; Duke of Bevern in,
264 ; Austrian forces in, 265 ; 266 sqq. ;
282 ; 291 sq. ; Maria Theresa and, 244 ;
327 ; Frederick the Great and, 704 ; 705
sq.; Catharine II and, 707
Luther, Martin, 254; 274
Lutternberg, battle of, 426
Luttrell, Colonel, and John Wilkes, 440
Luxemburg, seminary at, 637 ; 641 ; 647 ;
Austrian retreat to, 652
Luynes, Duke of, 165
Luzern, canton of, 613 ; 625
Lynar, Count zu, Saxon statesman, 730
Lyttelton, George Lyttelton, Lord, 71;
434
Macartney, George Macartney, first Earl,
in Madras, 577
Macaulay, Thomas Babington, Lord
Macaulay, 802; 818
Zachary, and the slave trade, 472
Macclesfield, Charles Gerard, second Earl
of, 8
Macdonald of Clanranald, 105 ; 111 sq.
of Gleucoe, 111 sq.
of Keppoch, 101 sq. ; HI sq.
JSneas, Jacobite, 111
Sir Donald, of Sleat, 100
Sir John, Jacobite, 111
Maodonell of Glengarry, 111 sq.
Macgregor (or Drummond), William, of
Balhaldie, Jacobite, 109 sq.
Machault d'Arnouville, Jean-Baptiste de,
French statesman, 332 ; 334 sq. ; 348
Machiavelli, Niocol6, 790 ; 793 ; 798 ; 820
Index.
1001
Mackenzie, James Stewart, 424; 430
Sir George, Jus Regium, 800
Maokinnon, Laird of, 105
Mackintosh, Sir James, Vindiciae Gallicae,
477
William, of Borlum, 98 sq. ; 101 ;
103
Maclean, Sir Hector, of Duart, 111
Maopherson, James, Ossian, 830 sqq.
Macrae, James, Governor of Madras, 532
Madagascar, European pirates at, 531 ;
535
Madras, 248 ; evacuated by the French,
249 ; 427 ; 445 ; 529 ; growth of, 532 ;
534 sq. ; captured by the French, 536 ;
restored to England, 538 ^ 689 ; French
attack on, 547 sq. ; 552 sq. ; Haidar Ali
at, 567 ; misrule in, 676 ; 577 ; 582
Madrid, the Old Pretender at, 105 ; 141 ;
145 ; decay of, 166 ; entry of Charles III
into, 366 ; 371 ; Treaty of, 39
Madura, Dupleix and, 540
Maestricht, 247 sq.; Joseph II and, 643
sqq.
Magdeburg, taxation in, 221 ; in the Seven
Years' War, 256, 260, 263, 265 sqq.;
327; 339; colonisation in, 716; 718;
Conference (1688), 4
Magnan, French ambassador at St Peters-
burg, 303
Maharashtra, region of, 521
Mah^, France and, 847, 454, 464, 633
de la Bourdounais, Bertrand-Franijois,
French naval officer, 635 sqq. ; 542 ; 546
Mahmud I, Sultan of Turkey, 304
Mahou, Viscount. See Stanhope, .third
Earl
Maillebois, Jean -Baptiste- Francois Des-
marets. Marquis de. Marshal of France,
154 ; 161 ; 165 ; 232 ; retires into
Bavaria, 235 ; 236 ; in Piedmont, 243 ;
245; 362; 608
Mailly, Louise-Julie de Nesle, Comtesse de,
and Louis XV, 164 ; 330
Main, river, British troops on, 237 sq. ;
273; 277
Maine, Louis-Auguste de Bonrbon, Duke of,
120 sq. ; 128
Anne-Louise-Bdn^dicte de Bonrbon,
Duchess of, 33 ; 125 ; 128 sq ; and GeUa-
mare, 130 ; 132
Sir Henry James Sumner, 814 ; 821
Maintenon, FranQoise d'Aubigu^, Marquise
de, 92 ; 121 ; 132
Mainville, French officer in India, 541
Mainz, Pragmatic army at, 238
arohbislioprio of, 704
Frederick Charles, Elector of, 708
Lothair Francis, Elector of, 202
Philip Charles, Elector of, 231
Maistre, Joseph-Marie, Count de, 837
Malagrida, Gabriel,' Jesuit, 387
Malik Ambar, Abyssinian Minister, 513
Malines, 248 ; seminary of, 651 ; 652
Ajchbisbop of. See Frankenberg
Malmesbury, James Harris, first Earl of,
ambassador at Si Petersburg, 460; 470;
472
Malone, Anthony, Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer in Ireland, 489
Malplaquet, battle of, 206
Man, Isle of, Wesley in, 83
Manchester, Jacobites at, 101 ; 114 ; 496
Mangalore, Treaty of, 577
Manila, 369 ; restored to Spain, 370 ; 373 ;
427; 430
Mannheim, Frederick William I at, 212
Mansfield, William Murray, first Earl of,
403 ; 405 ; 424; 426; and Wilkes, 432 ;
434 sq. ; 441 sq. ; and America, 447 ;
472
David Murray, second Earl of (Vis-
count Stormont), ambassador at Paris,
378 ; 449 sq. ; President of Council,
464
Sir James, Lord Chief Justice of
Common Pleas, 188
Mantua, claimed by the King of Sardinia,
152 ; 153 sq. ; Leopold II at, 656
Manzoni, Alessandro, Italian writer, 831
Mar, John Erskine, sixth or eleventh Earl
of, 43 ; 96 sq. ; rising of, 98 sqq. ;
attainted, 103; 106
Marajo, French settlement on, 389
Maranhao and Pari Company, 385 sq.
Maranhao-Para, State of, 389 sq.
Marathas, the, and the Moghul dynasty,
618 ; revolt of, 521 sq. ; 524 sq. ; 529 ;
531 sq. ; 541 ; 567 ; and the Emperor
Shah Alam, 568; 569; 577 sq.; Maratha
War, 446, 581 sq. ; and Warren Hastings,
583
Marbois. See Barb^-Marbois
Mardefeld, Gustav von, Prussian minister
at St Petersburg, 316 ; 658
Mardyk, war-port at, 23 ; 26
Maremma, the, attempt to colonise, 601 ;
603
Maria I, Queen of Portugal, 375; 381; 388
Amalia, Queen of Charles III of
Spain, 156 ; 367 ; 596 sq.
Amalia, wife of Charles Albert of
Bavaria (Charles VII), 201
Anna Victoria, Infanta of Spain, 39 ;
126; 140; 143
Casimiria, Queen of Poland, 191
Feodorovna, consort of Tsar Paul,
696
Josepha, consort of Augustus III of
Poland, 201
Josepha, consort of Joseph II, 630 sq.
Leszozynska, Queen of France,
marriage of, 143 sq. ; 146; 148; 156;
164; 194; 196; 199
Louisa, Grand Duchess of Tuscany.
See Tuscany
Louisa Gabrielle, Queen consort of
Philip V of Spain, 122
Theresa, Empress, and the War of
the Austrian Succession, Chapter VIII
1002
Index.
(3) passim; and the Seven Years' War,
Chapter IX passim ; 57 ; 139 sqq. ; 155 ;
159 sq. ; and the Pragmatic Sanction,
203 ; accession of, 204 ; 810 ; 315 ; and
Frederick the Great, 316, 338, 398 ; 317 ;
323; and Marshal Soltikofi, 324; 325;
and the Empress Elizabeth, 325, 327 ;
331; and Count Kaunitz, 335; 336; 339;
341 ; 343 ; Prance and, 345 ; 346 ; and
Poland, 355, 630, 669, 732; 366; and
the Franco-Austrian alUance, 400 sq, ;
427 ; and Clement XIII, 594 ; and the
Jesuits, 595 ; 596 ; and Naples, 597 ;
600 ; 626 sqq. ; 632 ; and Bavaria, 633 ;
and reform, 637 sqq. ; and the Nether-
lands, 649 ; and Catharine II, 677, 699 ;
707; 724; death of, 634
Maria Theresa, Infanta of Spain, 156 ; 160
Mariana, Queen Eegent of Portugal, 384
Victoria, Queen of Joseph of Por-
tugal,'375; 388
Victoria, Dona, 381 sq.
Mariane, French charge d'affaires in Swit-
zerland, 616
Marie-Antoinette, Queen of France, mar-
riage of, 356 ; 616 ; 644 ; 783 sq.
Marie-Josgphe, Dauphiness, 199 ; 338
Marignano, battle of, 611 sq., 621
Marischal, George Keith, tenth Earl, 98;
103 sqq.
Marivauz, Pierre Garlet de Ghamblain de,
833
Marklissa, Field-marshal Daun at, 291 ;
292
Marlborough, John Churchill, Duke of,
7 sq. ; 11 ; 14 ; 16 sq. ; 91 ; 206 ; 267
George Spencer, fourth Duke of, 424 ;
Lord Privy Seal, 430
Marschall, General von, in Lusatia, 264 sq. ;
268 _; 278
Marseilles, the plague at, 128 ; 348 ;
arsenal at, 349
Martini, Ferdinand Heinrich Wilhelm,
naturalist, 626; 635
Martinique, 346 ; 348 ; 351 ; conquest of,
421, 426; ceded to France, 428 ; 453 sq.
Mary II, Queen of England, 6 sq.
Maryland, 62 ; trade of, 447
Massachusetts Bay, Assembly of, 439 ;
446 sq.
Massin, forest of, 281 sq.
Masulipatam, ceded to the French, 639;
546 ; taken by the English, 548
Mathews, Thomas, Admiral, 160; 237; 239
Matignon, Charles-Auguste de Goyon,
Count de (Count de Qac^), Marshal of
France, 92
Matto Grosso, province of, 390
Maupeou, Ken^ - Nicolas-Charles-Augustin
de. Chancellor of France, 356 sqq.
Maurepas, Jean-Fr^d^rioPhSlypeaux, Count
de, French statesman, 113 ; 535
Mauritius, 133 ; the French in, 634 sq.
Mauthausen, Elector of Bavaria at, 232
Maxen, Prussian defeat at, 294 sq.
Maximilian Joseph, Elector of Bs
See Bavaria
Maynwaring, Eoger, Bishop of St Di
803
Mazarquivir, Spanish possession, 38
Mazeievich, Arseni, Archbishop of B
679
Meadows, Sir ViTilliam, General, in
469; 475
Mecklenburg, Russian force in, 26; 2i
Peter the Great and, 206; 220;
276 ; Swedish troops in, 280 ; 742
Mecklenburg- Schwerin, Elizabeth Cati
Christina, Princess of. See Brun
Wolfenbiittel, Princess Anna Leopol
of
Charles Leopold, Duke
Frederick, Duke of, 266
Mecklenburg- Strelitz, Swedish troo]
280
Medici, Cosimo de'. See Tuscany, (
Duke of
Mediterranean, British fleet in, 32;
337 ; 350 ; suppression of piracy in
452
Meerset, Colonel van der, defeati
Austrians at Turnhout, 662
Meier, family of (in Luzern), 625
Melcombe, George Bubb Dodington,
424 sq. ; 427
Melilla, Moorish attack on, 374
Melville, Henry Dundas, first Visi
465 sq. J Treasurer of the Navy,
581
Memel, 264; blockaded, 409
MendoQa, Francisco Xavier de, 385
Menin, Marshal Saxe in, 240
Meushikoff, Prince Alexander Daniel
Bussian statesman, 302
Menzel, Saxon ofScial, 254
Menzies of Shian, 113
Mercy, Claude Florimund, Austrian ge
154 ; 615 ; 623 ; 644
M^rinville, Charles-Franpois de Mot
de. Bishop of Chartres, 162
Merseburg, Frederick the Great at,
271
Meseritz, General Fermor at, 279
Messina, 32 sq. ; Spanish ocoupatio
153
Methueu Treaty (1702), 386 sq.
Meuse river, Charles of Lorraine at,
248
Mexico, 183; and Napoleon III, 352;
of, 380 sq.
Michael, King of Poland, 198
Michell, Abraham Ludwig, Prussian
bassador in London, 402
Middlesex, Reform meetings in, 455
Midleton, Alan Brodrick, first Vise
487
Alan Brodrick,, second Vise
487
Mietzel river, Russian army at, 2SJ
285
Index.
1003
Milan, 139; 151 sqq. ; 159; assigned to
Sardinia, 160; 161; 167; 201; evacuated
by the Spaniards, 245 ; Don Philip at,
608; 617
Milanese, the, 236 ; Don Philip's claims in,
239 ; 243 ; 245
Mill, John Stuart, 814
Milton, John, political writings of, 795 sq.,
803, 807, 813; 831
Minas Geraes, gold in, 390
Minoio, river, the Allies cross, 154
Mindelheim, Saxony and, 632
Minden, French defeat at, 842
Minorca, Sir George Byng at, 32 ; 57 ; 66 ;
68 ; 139 sqq. ; 239 ; seized by Marshal
Bichelieu, 837 ; 338 ; restored to Spain,
347; 365; 376; capture of , 379 ; 880 sq.;
408 : 428 ; blockaded, 462 ; ceded to Spain,
464
Minsk, district of, 669
Miquelon, island of, 346 ; ceded to France,
428, 464
Mir Jaf ar, Naw4b of Bengal, 553 sqq. ; Clive
and, 557 sq. ; deposed, S59 ; restoration
of, 561 ; death of, ih.
Kasim, Nawib of Bengal, 559 sq.;
deposed, 561
Mirabeau, Honors -Gabriel de Biquetti,
Count, 721; 723
Miran, son of Mir Jafar, 555 ; 559
Miranda, captured by the Spaniards, 369
Mirepoix, Gaston-C.-F. de L^vis, Due de,
French ambassador in London, 333 ; 542
Mississippi river, 183 ; contraband trade
on, 373 ; Spanish successes on, 377 ; the
Treaty of Paris and, 429 ; 462
Company and scheme, 128 ; 181 ;
172 sqq. ; 532
Mitchell, Sir Andrew, ambassador to
Prussia, 284; 321; 338; 401; 409
Mobile, Spanish capture of, 377
Modena, 153 ; 243 ; acquired by Maria
Theresa, 246; 586
Francis IH, Duke of, 171 ; 237 ; 243 ;
249
Charlotte-Aglae, Duchess of, 133
Modene, Francois-Charles de Baimond,
Count de, French ambassador to Sweden,
765 sq.
Mors, evacuated by the French, 300
Moser, Justus, political economist, 205
Moghul Empire, Chapter XV (1)
Mohabat Ehan, Moghul general, 517
Mohammad Ali, Nawab of the Carnatio,
540; 544; 576
Moir, James, of Stonywood, Jacobite, 115
Moldau river, Austrians cross, 257; 258
Moldavia (see also Dauubian Principalities),
307 sq.; 672; 674
Molin^s, Cardinal, arrested, 124
MoUwitz, battle of, 230 sqq.
Moltke, Count Adam Gottlob, Danish states-
man, 735 ; 740 sq. ; dismissed, 743
Christian Frederick, Danish grand
marshal, 749
Molyueux, William, Case of Ireland, 480,
494 ; 484 gq. ; 491
Monck, George, Duke of Albemarle. See
Albemarle
Monckton, Bobert, Lieutenant-general, 426
Moncorvo, captured by the Spaniards, 369
Mons, besieged by the French, 246; 339
Monson, George, member of the Indian
Council, 571 sq.
Montagu, Charles, Earl of Halifax. See
Halifax
Lady Mary Wortley, 175
Monti, Yincenzo, Italian poet, 880
Monteleone, Marquis of, mission of, to
Versailles and London, 133
Montemar, General, in Italy, 153 sq. ; 159 ;
165; 596
Montesquieu, Charles de Seoondat, Baron
de la Br&de et de, 165 ; 167 ; and Law,
177 ; 589 ; 687 ; 811
Montevideo, founding of, 391
Montfaucon, Bernard de, 589
Montgon, Charles- Alexandre de, Spanish
envoy to France, 146
Monti, Antonio Felice, Marquis de, French
ambassador in Poland, 193 sq. ; 196 sq.
Montijo, Count, Spanish diplomatist, 166
Montrose, Jacobite rising at, 98 ; 102 sq.
Montserrat, captured by the French, 454;
464
Mor4d, Prince, son of Shah Jehdn, 519
Moravia, 204; Prussian invasion of, 233
sqq.; 255; 277; Prussian army in, 279;
280 ; 286 ; 310 ; 889 ; Joseph II visits,
626 ; insurrection in, 628 ; 688 ; 706 sq.
More, Alexander, 798
Morea, 4; the Turks in, 30; Venice and,
605 sq. ; 675
Moreira, confessor of Joseph I of Portugal,
386
Morellet, Andr^, reports on the French
India Company, 549 sq.
Morgarten, battle of, 617
Morocco, Eipperd4 in, 143
Morse, Nicolas, Governor of Madras, 586
Morville, Charles-Jean-Baptiste Fleurian,
Count de, French Minister for Foreign
ASairs, 146
Moscow, Tsarina EUzabeth at, 311 sq. ;
681 ; Legislative Commission at, 687 ;
688; 695; 699
Moy Hall, Prince Charles at, 116
Mozaffar Jang, ruler of the Dekhan, 539 sq.
Mstislavl, district of, 669
Miicheln, Soubise at, 270 sq.
Miiller, Johannes von, Swiss historian, 625
Miillern, Chancellor of Sweden, 34
Miinchengratz, Daun at, 291
Miinchhausen, Baron Gerlach Adolph von,
Hanoverian statesman, 4
Miinnich, Burkhard Christoph von, Bussian
Commander-in-chief, 196 sq. ; 302 sqq. ;
309; arrested and banished, 311 sqq.; 322
Miinster, Treaty of, and the Scheldt, 641
sqq.
1004
Index.
Munich, capitulates, 233; 238; 647
Munro, Sir Hector, General, 454 ; 561 sq. ;
576
Munster, 490 ; agrarian crime in, 504
Murad, Prince, son of the Emperor Akbar,
513
Muratori, Ludovico Antonio, 589; 599
Murray, Lord George, Jacobite general,
112 sqq.
James, General, Governor of Minorca,
379; 452
Sir John, of Broughton, 109 ; 111 ;
114
William. See Mansfield, first Earl of
Murshidab&d, treasury of, 555, 558, 568,
582
Musquiz, Don Miguel, Spanish Minister of
Finance, 371
Mustafa, Sultan of Turkey, 855
MuthUl, burnt by the Jacobites, 102
Mysore, 540; 541; Haidar Ali in, 549;
567; 577
Nachod, Prussian army at, 279, 632, 705
Nadasdy, Franz Leopold, Count, Austrian
Field-marshal, 273 ; 275 sq.
K4dir Shah (Kuli Ehan), andBussia, 304;
307; 524; 527
Nafels, battle of, 617
Nairn, the Duke of Cumberland at, 116
Nairne, John Nairne, Lord, Jacobite, 103 ;
113
Namur, siege of, 247; 647; 656
Bishop of. See Lichtervelde
Nancr^, Marquis de, French envoy to
Madrid, 30
Nancy, ez-Eing Stanislaus at, 199
Nantes, Bevocation of the Edict of, 614
Naples, Sir George Byng at, 32 ; Don Carlos
in, 62, 153, 167; 151 sq.; 155; and the
Pragmatic Sanction, 203; 233; 237;
241; 366; anti-clericalism in, 583; and
the Papacy, 590 ; 594 ; under Charles III,
596 sqq. ; Genoa and, 607
Napoleon I, Emperor of the French, 215
sq. ; 295 ; and the Corsicans, 350 ; 352 ;
and Prussia, 725; 728; 830; Mexican
schemes of, 352
Naruszewicz, Adam Stanislas, Polish writer,
671
Nasir Jang, ruler of the Dekhan, 539 sq.
Nassau, Count Maurice of, Governor-
General of BrazU, 389
Nassau-Dillenburg, Prince William of, 247
Natal, ceded to Great Britain, 429
Naumburg, Austrians in, 297
Navarre, 136; Spain and, 141
Navarro, Admiral, 160; 236
Necker, Jacques, 550; Gustavus III and,
782
Negapatam, Dutch settlement, 454 ; French
and English at, 535 ; 547
Negro river, settlements on, 390
Neipperg, Wilhelm von, Austrian Field-
marshal, 230; 232
Neisse, fortress of, 229 sq.; 232 sq.; 278;
siege of, 289 sqq. ; conference at, 633 ;
668; 703; 731
Nemiroff, Peace Congress at, 807
Neplyneff, Ivan, Bussian ambassador in
Turkey, 304
Neri, Pompeo, Tuscan statesman, 602
Netherlands. See United Provinces
Austrian, 23 ; 57 ; 139 ; and the
Ostend Company, 182; 201 sq.; 204;
evacuated by the French, 249 ; 273 ; the
Treaty of Versailles and, 336; 339 sq.;
626 ; 631 ; 640 ; Joseph II in, 641 ; and
the navigation of the Scheldt, 642 sqq.;
646 sq. ; revolt of, 648 sqq., 710
Nettuno, the Old Pretender at, 105
Neuburg, Charles Philip, Duke of, 97
Neuchatel, and the Franco-Swiss alliance,
617
Neuhausel, capture of, 4
Neuhof, Baron Theodore von, King of
Corsica, 609
Neumarkt, Frederick the Great at, 275
Neu-Euppin, Swedish troops in, 287
Neustadt, capture of, 242 ; 633 ; 668 ; 703 ;
731
Nevers, Philippe-Jules-Franpois, Duke of,
165
Nevill, Surveyor-general for Ireland, 488
Nevis, captured by the French, 454 ; 464
New England, and British trade, 52 sqq.
Hampshire, trade of, 447
Jersey, trade of, 447
Orleans, 133 ; insurrection at, 373 ;
429
York, importation of salt to, 51 ; 446 ;
Admiral Howe at, 451; 453; Assembly
of, 438
Newoastle-under-Lyne, Cumberland's army
at, 114
Newcastle-upon-Tyne, 97; 113; General
Wade at, 114 sq.
Newcastle, Thomas Pelham-HoUes, first
Duke of, 54 ; Secretary of State, 59 ;
Principal Secretary, 61 ; 62 sq. ; and
Spain, 65 sqq. ; 70 ; 72 sq. ; resigns, 74 ;
ministry of, 75 ; Pitt and, ib.; 333; 346;
character of, 396 sq. ; 398 ; 401 ; ministry
of, 402 sqq. ; 405 ; First Lord of the
Treasury, 406; 407; 417; 419; retires,
422 ; 424 sqq. ; and Prussia, 427 ; 428 ;
434; Lord Privy Seal, 435; 436; and
Indian affairs, 542 ; death of, 442
Newfoundland, fishery rights in, 344, 367,
370, 380, 465, 494 ; assigned to England,
411 ; French rights in, 464
Newnham, Alderman, and the Prince of
Wales, 472
Newton, Sir Isaac, 19; 826
Nice, regained by Sardinia, 249
Nicolay, Aymard-C.-F.-M. de. Bishop of
Verdun, 356
Nieder-Schonfeld, Bavarian army capitu-
lates at, 238
Niemcewicz, Julian Ursin, 671
Index.
1005
Nieuport, ceded to France, 339
Nithsdale, William Maxwell, fifth eail of,
101; 103
Niveruais, Due de, mission of to Berlin,
384 sq. ; in London, 346, 428 ; 400
Nizam-ul-Mulk, Viceroy of Southern India,
524 ; 532 ; 539
Noailles, Adrien Maurice, Duke of, Marshal
of France, 128 sq. ; 154 ; mission of, to
Madrid, 161; 165; 167; 238 sq.; 411
Nobrega, Jesuit, founder of SSo Paulo,
390
Noloken, Erik Mattias von, Swedish states-
man, 811
Noot, Henri van der, Belgian politician,
651 sqq. ; 656
Kootka Sound, British ships seized in, 475 ;
477
Nordin, Carl Gustaf, and Gustavus III,
777 sqq.
Noris, Enrico, Cardinal, 589
Normandy, bread riots in, 144 ; 452 ; 783
Norris, Sir John, Admiral, 24 ; 26 ; 28 ; in
the Baltic, 34, 36 ; 110 ; 239
Norrkoping, Swedish Riksdag at, 766
North, Frederick, Lord. See Guilford,
second Earl of
North Berwick, Jacobites at, 99
North Briton, the, 441 ; 429 sqq.
Northington, Robert Henley, first Earl of,
Lord Chancellor, 425 ; 434 sqq. ; President
of the Council, 439
Eobert Henley , second Earl of. Viceroy
of Ireland, 464 ; 501 sqq.
Northumberland, Hugh Percy, first Duke
(and fourth Earl) of, 424 ; 437 ; 492
Norton, Sir Fletcher. See Grantley, Lord
Norway, invaded by Charles XII, 26 ;
Denmark and, 736 sq.; 738; 749; 752 sq.;
Gustavus in and, 754 ; 757
Nova Colonia, ceded to Spain, 386
Scotia, assigned to England, 411 ;
412
Novara, the Preliminaries of Vienna and,
155
Novlkoff, Nicolas Ivanoviob, Bussian
writer, 699
Nuncomar, Sir Elijah Impey and, 471 ; and
Warren Hastings, 572 sqq. ; 583
Nunez, Fernan, Spanish envoy at Lisbon,
377
Nur Jeh&n, wife of the Emperor Akbar,
516 sq.
Nymegen, Peace of, 4
Nymphenburg, Treaty of, 231
Nystad, Peace of, 37, 758, 782
Oakboy disturbances in Ireland, 490
Obschutz, French army at, 270 sqq.
Ochakoff, 305 ; 307 ; captured by Eussia,
676
Oder river, 274 ; 279 ; Russians and Prus-
sians on, 280 ; 292 sqq. ; 326
Odessa, 676 ; Catharine II and, 692
Oeder, Georg Christian, 747
Oehlenschlager, Adam Gottlob, Danish
poet, 831
Oeyras, Count of. See Pombal, Marquis
of
Oglethorpe, James Edward, Commander of
Wade's Horse, US
Ohio Valley, colonisation in, 183 ; 462
Okey, John, regicide, 799
Oldenburg, Denmark and, 736 ; 741 sq. ;
744; 753
Olinda, captured by the Dutch, 389
Oliver, Richard, Alderman of London, 444
Olmiitz, 233 ; siege of, 277 sq., 707 ; 280 ;
289 ; seminary at, 637
Omichand, and the conspiracy against
Sir&j-ud-daul4, 554 sq.
Onslow, Arthur (Speaker), 70; 72
Oporto, riots in, 386; Wine Company of,
385
Oran, captured by Spain, 151 ; 380
Orange, William V, Prince of, 709
Wilhelmina, Princess of, 709
Orbitello, Spanish troops at, 159, 236
Orde, Thomas. See Bolton, Lord
O'Reilly, Alexander, Spanish general, 373
sq. ; 382
Orendayn, Juan. See La Paz, Marquis de
Orford, Horace Walpole, fourth Earl of, 89;
423 ; 460 sq. ; and the Indian Nabobs,
570 ; and Benedict XIV, 589 ; 832
Sir Eobert Walpole, first Earl of,
ministry of (1722-42), Chapter I (1);
22; 89; resigns, 72; 109; 157; and
the South Sea Company, 179 sqq. ; and
the Pragmatic Sanction, 202 ; 235 ; 237 ;
394 ; Pitt and, 395 sq. ; policy of, ib. ;
417 ; and Irish affairs, 485 sq. ; and the
East India Company, 530 ; 809 ; 817 sq.
Oriel, John Foster, Lord, and the Irish
corn laws, 503 sq.
Orissa, regained by France, 464; British
influence in, 556; 564
Orleans, Louis, Duke of (Duke of Chartres),
Philip II, Duke of, Eegent of
France, Chapter IV passim; 25 sqq.;
29 sq. ; Alberoni and, 33 ; 35 ; and Great
Britain, 38 ; and the Jacobites, 97, 102 ;
character of, 127; 140; and Law's
System, 169, 172 sq. ; Spanish policy of,
350; 394; death of, 127, 131 sq.
Charlotte - Elisabeth, Duchess of
(" Madame "), 132 sq. ; 164
Orloff, Count Alexei, 662 sq. ; 673 ; 679
Count Gregori, 365; and Catharine
II, 660, 662; 679; 696
Ormea, Charles-FranQois- Vincent Ferrero,
Marquis of, Sardinian diplomat, 589 sq.
Ormond, James Butler, first Duke of. Lord-
lieutenant of Ireland, 486
James Butler, second Duke of, 14 ; 18 ;
97 sq. ; 102 ; and Alberoni, 104 sq. ; expe-
dition of, to England, 125; 142
Ony de Pulvy, Commissary of the Per-
petual Company of the Indies, 533 ; 537
1006
Index.
Orgini (des Uisins), Anne Marie de la
Tr^mouiUe, Princess, 122
Oruba, the Dutch in, 186
Orvilliers, Louis Guillouet, Count de, French
admiral, 376 ; 450 sq.
Osnabriick, Bishop ol See Hanover, Ernest
Augustus, Elector of
Osten, Count Adolphus Sigfried, Danish
Minister for Foreign Affairs, 747 ; 751
Ostend, British headquarters at, 243 ; 246 ;
ceded to France, 339 ; 644
Bast India Company, 49 ; 57 sqq. ;
suppressed, 60 ; 138 sqq., 145 sq. ; 149 ;
Charles YI and, 182; Spain and, 202;
209
Osterman, Count Andrei Ivanovioh, Eus-
sian Foreign Minister, 302 sqq. ; 309 sq. ;
arrested, 311 ; death of, 312 ; 313 sq.
Count Ivan Andreivich, 682 ; am-
bassador to Sweden, 766
O'Sulivan, John, Colonel, Jacobite, 111
Osuna, French minister at Madrid, 343 sq.
Oswald, Bichard, and the peace negotiations
(1782), 461
Oswego, Fort, captured, 403
Ottmachau, taken by Prussia, 230
Oudh, 524 sq.; 561; a "buffer" state,
563 ; 668 sq. ; S70 ; the Begams of, 471,
578 sqq. ; Hastings' policy in, 682 sqq.
Ouessant, naval engagement off, 451 sq.
Owen, John, works of, burnt at Oxford, 807
Oxford, the Wesleys at, 82 ; University of,
805; 807
Eobert Harley, first Earl of, 11 ;
Lord Treasurer, 12 ; and the Succession,
14 sqq. ; dismissal of, 17 ; George I and,
18; 96; and the South Sea Company,
177
Ozus river, the Emperor B&bar's troops on,
508
Ozarowsky, Polish envoy to Paris, 197
Ozeroff, Ladislas, Bussian poet, 830; 832
Paine, Thomas, 477 ; Bights of Man, 836
Palatinate, Upper, allied armies in, 235
Charles Lewis, Elector Palatine, 5
Charles Philip, Elector Palatine, 202
sq.; 231
Charles Theodore, Elector Palatine,
240; 246; 631
Elizabeth, Princess Palatine, 5
Maria Anna Louisa, Eleotress Pala-
tine, 138
Palermo, captured by Spain, 82 ; 124 sq. ;
153
Paley, William, theologian, 88
PaUiser, Sir Hugh, Admiral, 451
Pauin, Count Nikita, Bussian statesman,
662 sq. ; Foreign Minister, 668 sq. ; 678
sg. ; 682 ; and the Nakds of Catharine II,
686 ; 697 ; and Poland, 730 ; 732 ; 753 ;
765 ; and the Swedish coup d'etat, 772
Count Peter, Bussian general, 673;
697
F^niput, 609 ; Marathas defeated at, 524, 568
Panmure, James Maule, fourth Earl of,
98; 103
Paoli, Pasquale de', Corsican general, 350;
439 ; 609 sq.
Papacy, the. Chapter XYI ; and the
Jacobites, 110; 149; Frederick William I
and, 226 ; and Spain, 365 ; and Irish
Catholics, 476 ; Joseph II and, 635 ; ^nd
Poland, 665; Catharine II and, 693
Papal States, 153 ; campaigns in, 587 ;
Jesuits in, 592 sq. ; Spanish troops in,
596
Para, seat of Government at, 390
Paraguay, Jesuits in, 364, 372, 386, 593
Paraiba Company, 385
Pardo, Convention of the, 67 sq. , 147
Paris, Peter the Great in, 28 ; 97 ; the
Young Pretender in, 110 ; 111 ; 121 ;
growth of, 133 ; disturbances in, 144;
the Parlement of, 146, 356 ; famine in,
162; 169; Law's System in, 176; 308;
316; Count Eaunitz at, 335; 338; the
Family Compact signed at, 344 ; military
school at, 349 ; 358 sq. ; 783
Preliminaries of (1727), 146 sq.
Treaty of (1763), 346 sq., 349, 422 sq.,
428, 430 ; and India, 549, 561
Treaty of (1778), 449
Archbishop of. See Beaumont,
Christophe de
Paris brothers, French financiers, 174
Park, Mungo, African explorer, 188
Parker, Sir Hyde, Vice-admiral, 452
Samuel, Bishop of Oxford, 806
Parma, 29 ; 60 ; Elisabeth Famese and,
122; 126; claims to, 138; 139; Don
Carlos succeeds to, 149 sqq. ; 152 ; the
war in, 153 sq. ; 155 sq. ; 159 ; taken by
Spain, 160 ; Don Philip and, 167, 239,
249 sq., 608 ; the Treaty of SeviUe and,
202 ; taken by the Duke of Modena, 243 ;
245; relinquished by Maria Theresa, 246;
366 ; the Papacy and, 687, 594 ; 600
Antonio Famese, Duke of, 138 ; 147 ;
149
Charles, Duke of. See Charles III,
King of Spain
Ferdinand VI, Duke of, 593 sq.
Francesco Famese, Duke of, 35 ;
88; 122; 126; and the Spanish claims,
138 sq.; 586
Philip, Duke of, 189 ; 141 ; 158 ; in
Italy, 169 sqq., 167 ; 237; and the Family
Compact, 239, 344 sq., 368; 260; at
Parma, 246; 339; 363; 366; the Franco-
Austrian alliance and, 401 ; 597 ; 608
Henrietta of Modena, Duchess of,
147
Louisa Elisabeth, Duchess of, 158
Passaro, Cape, naval battle off, 38, 104,
125, 157; 419
Fassarowitz, Peace of, 32; 125; 203; 308;
587 ; and Venice, 605
Fassau, taken by Elector of Bavaria, 231;
236
Index.
loor
Fatino, Don Joek de, Spanish statesman,
64 sq. ; 126 ; 142 ; 145 sqq. ; and Eng-
land, 151, 155; 157; 159; Elisabeth
Farnese and, 166; 382; death of, 156
Fatna, seizure of, 560; 561
Patriot King, the, 71
Faul I, Tsar, 340 ; 658 sqq. ; 662 ; 679 ;
accession of, 681 ; 696 ; 700 ; 743 ; signs
the Treaty of Exchange, 753
Fayia, seminary at, 637
Fecblin, Baron Carl Fredrik, Swedish
statesman, 763 sq. ; 768 ; 781
Pedro III, King Consort of Portugal, 388
Felham, Henry, statesman, coloni^ policy
of, 53 sq. ; 71 sq. ; ministry of, 74 sq. ;
396; death of, 402
Felim, Miinnich banished to, 312
Fenu, Bichard, envoy of tiie American
Congress, 447
Fennsylvania, trade of, 51 ; 447
Penobscot river, American fleet destroyed
in, 449
Fenon de Telez, Moorish attack on, 374
Penrith, - Jacobite force at, 101
Fensacola, ceded to Spain, 126; 377; 453
Fenterriedter, Baron von, Austrian envoy
at Hanover, 29 sq.
Percy, Thomas, Bishop of Dromore, 830 sq.
Perekop, the lines of, 305 sq. ; 308 ; 673
Pereyaslavl, Treaty of, 695
Pemambuco, taken by the Dutch, 389;
390
Company, 385
Perpetual Company of the Indies, the
(French), 533
Persia, under the Safevi kings, 507 ; 508 ;
disturbances in, 512 ; 524 ; 527 ; at war
vrith Bussia, 672
Perth, taken by the Jacobites, 98; the
Earl of Mar at, 99 sqq. ; 102 sq. ;
Prince Charles at, 112 ; 115 sq.
titular Duke of. See Drummond
Peru, and European trade, 183 ; 190 ; 351 ;
rebelUon in, 381
Fery, Edmund Sexton Pery, Viscount, 494
Pescatori, Laura, and the Queen of Spain,
122
Fesh4war, Persian descent on, €24
Pest, seminary at, 637
Peter the Great, Tsar, and the Baltic, 24 ;
and Sweden, 26, 28, 37 ; and George I,
27 ; visits Paris, 28 ; 33 sqq. ; 125 ; 143 ;
and Poland, 191, 193 ; 200 ; and Prussia,
206; and the army, 217; 298; 302;
conquests of, in Persia, 304 ; 305 ; 312
sq. ; 821 ; 663 ; and Turkey, 672 ; 677 ;
681 sq. ; Catharine II and, 691 ; 693 sq. ;
698 ; 700 sq. ; 741
II, Tsar, 303 ; 311
Ill, Tsar, 252; and Frederick the
Great, 298 sq. ; 300 ; accession of, 328,
346 ; and Poland, 353 ; 427 ; marriage of,
658 sq. ; 660 sq. ; murder of, 662 sq. ; 665 ;
policy of, 679 sqq. ; and the nobility,
685 ; 729 ; 741 sq.
Peter Leopold, Grand Duke of Tuscany.
See Leopold II, Emperor
Peterhead, the Old Pretender lands at,
102
Peterhof, Tsarina Anne at, 309
Petty, Sir William, political economist,
481
Peyton, Edward, Commodore, 535 ; 537
PhiUp II, King of Spain, 152 ; 389
V, King of Spain, Chapters IV and
V passim ; 25 ; invades Sardinia, 29 ;
and the "Plan," ib.; 33 sq. ; and the
Quadruple Alliance, 3S ; 38 ; and Gibral-
tar, 39 ; and the Hanover Alliance, 59 ;
65; and the Old Pretender, 105; 110;
and the Pragmatic Sanction, 202 ; 350
sq ; 361 ; Clement XI and, 586 ; death
of, 161, 249, 597
son of Charles in of Spain, 366
Philippines, 344 ; lost by Spain, 346 ; 351 ;
427
Fiacenza, 29 ; Elisabeth Farnese and, 122 ;
152 ; 154 sq. ; 159 sq. ; Spanish defeat at,
161 ; Don Philip's rights in, 239 ; 243 ;
245 sq. ; acquired by Don Philip, 249 ;
362; 366; 597; 609
Piedmont (see also Sardinia), 237 ; Franco-
Spanish attack on, 241 ; 243 ; 245 ; and
the Papacy, 589 ; 608
Prince of. See Charles Emmanuel III,
King of Sardinia
Figot, George Pigot, Lord, Governor of
Madras, 548 ; 565 ; 576
PiUau, Bussian magazine at, 297
Fillnitz, Declaration of, 656
Filseu, surrender of, 234
Findemonte, Giovanni, poet, 835
Pirna, 244; Saxon army at, 255, 338
Pisani, Giorgio, Venetian politician, 607
Pisek, surrender of, 234
Fistoia, Diocesan Synod at, 605
Bishop of. See Bicci, Scipione
Pitt, Thomas ("Diamond Pitt"), 394
William, Earl of Chatham. See
Chatham
William, the younger, the rise of.
Chapter XHI (3); 45; 48; 66; and
Ireland, 503 sq. ; and Clive, 561 sq. ; and
Warren Hastings, 580 ; the India Bill of,
582 ; and Catharine II, 677
Pittenweem, Jacobites at, 99
Pius VI (Giovanni Angelo Braschi), Pope,
visits Vienna, 636
Plassey, battle of, 554 sq.
Platen, Countess of, 19
Plymouth, Franco-Spanish fleet at, 376,
452
Po river, Austrian troops on, 153 sq. ; 241 ;
245
Focock, Sir George, Admiral, 369; 426;
547 sq.
Podewils, Prussian minister, 421 ; 658
Fodhorzau, Frederick II at, 234
Fodolia, Austria and, 630
Poitou, scarcity in, 162
1008
Index.
Poland, under the Saxon Kings, Chapter
VII; and Prussia (1763-91), Chapter XX
(2) ; the succession in, 62, ISl sq. ; 143 ;
147 ; Fleury and, 150; Austria and, 203;
army of, 213; 2S5; 264; 279; Bassia
and, 304, 309, 314, 317; 340; France
and, 349, 352; the Powers and, 353;
election of Stanislaus Poniatowski, 354 ;
355; first partition of, 357, 616, 630,
664 sqq., 774, 703; 439; and Eussia,
628 sq.; Frederick the Great and, 629;
683; 675; Prussia and, 676; 693 sq.;
Catharine H. and, 700 ; 765 ; 782
Folignac, Melchior de, Cardinal, 191
PoUUore, engagement at, 577
Folozk, district of, 669
Poltawa, battle of, 192, 311
Pombal, Sebastian Joseph de Carvalho e
Mello, Marquis of (Count of Oeyras),
Portuguese statesman, 187 ; and the
Jesuits, 592 ; ministry of, 384 sqq. ; fall
of, 375, 388; and Brazil, 391 sq.; and
the Papacy, 594
Cardinal, 594
Pomerania, Prussian, taxation in, 221 ; 263 ;
266 sq.; Swedish troops in, 280, 287;
276 sq. ; 289; ravaged by the Swedes,
295; Russian army in, 297, 326; 409;
economic conditions in, 715 sq.
General Fermor in, 287 ; evacuated,
298
Swedish, 24; peasant proprietors in,
220; Frederick II and, 251 ; 266 sq.; 294
Pompadour, Jeanne-Antoinette Poisson,
Marquise de, 164; 254; 330; 333; and
French politics, 334; 335; and the Austrian
alliance, 336; and Count Starhemberg,
338; 339; 341; 348; and Choiseul, 356;
400 sq.; and the Church, 591; 592
Pondioherry, France and, 347 ; 427 ; 454 ;
regained by France, 464; 475; 582;
French rule in, 534 ; 535 sq. ; siege of,
538; 539 sq.; Dupleix at, 544 sq. ; 547;
taken by the British, 549, 577
Poniatowski, Stanislaus, Palatine of Ma-
zovia, 193 ; 196 sq.
Ponsonby, John, Speaker of the Irish House
of Commons, 489 ; 494
Pontecorvo, 494 ; restored to the Papacy,
595
Pontenuovo, battle of, 350, 610
Pontoise, 130 sq.; Parlement banished to,
347
Poona, Maratha insurgents in, 524 ; 575 ;
French envoy at, 576
Pope, Alexander, 822; 826
Popham, English officer in India, storms
Gwalior, 576
Port Egmont, Spanish attack on, 373 ; 437 ;
443
Port Mahon, 350; capitulates, 452
Porteous, John, Captain of the Edinburgh
City Guard, 48; 108
Portland, William Henry Cavendish Ben-
tinok, third Duke of, 431 ; Lord-lieutenant
of Ireland, 458 sq., 500 sq. ; 461 ; resigns,
462 sqq. ; and the Begency Bill, 474 ;
supports Pitt, 476; 478; 501
Porto Novo, English victory at, 577
Praya, naval engagement off, 454
Bico, penal settlement, 186; 378;
380
Portobello, 60 ; capture of, 72 ; 142
Portugal, 1750-93, Chapter XII (2); the
Methuen Treaty with, 49 ; 155 ; and the
slave trade, 187 ; loses Brazil, 189 ; the
Family Compact and, 345 ; the Jesuits
in, 348, 372, 591 sq. ; 363; Spanish
invasion of, 368; 426; 370; and Spain,
374 sqq., 381 ; and BrazU, 389 sqq. ; and
the Peace of Paris, 428 ; and the Papacy,
594
Posen, the Russians in, 291, 325; 326;
629 ; Prussia and, 708 sq.
Potemkin, Prince Gregori Alexandrovieh,
Russian statesman, 352; 674 sq. ; and
Catharine II, 678; 696; and Frederick II,
708; 753
Potocki Family, 200
Count Nicholas, 197
Count Theodore, Polish statesman,
193 sqq. ; 197
Potsdam, 215; the Due de Nivernais at,
335; 718
Potter, John, Archbishop of Canterbury,
77
Poynings' Law, 458 sq.; 493; 499 sq.
Prado, Don Juan de. Governor of Havana,
369
Praga, Polish Diet at, 195
Pragmatic Sanction, the, Chapter VIII (1) ;
57 ; 189 ; 149 sq. ; 152 ; 155 ; Augustus HI
of Poland and, 195 ; 228 sq. ; 310
Prague, 232; 234 sq. ; fall of (1743), 236;
241; battle of, 257 sqq.; 283 sq.; 341;
seminary at, 634; 721
Prato, 604; riot in, 605
Pratt, Sir Charles, See Camden, first Earl
of
Prenzlau, Swedish capture of, 280; 287
Fresidi, the, 152 ; 155 ; ceded to Tuscany,
597
Preston, Jacobites at, 101; 102; 114
Prestonpans, battle of, 113
Provost d'Exiles, Antoine-Framjois, French
AbbS, 824
Prie, Madame de, 134 ; 143 sq.
Priebus, Hadik and Laudon at, 292
Prior, Matthew, poet, 830
Prittwitz, Bittmeister, and Frederick the
Great, 324
Prossnitz, Prussian army at, 278
Provence, 159; 350; invasion of, 362
Providence, 447; relinquished by Spain,
464
Providien, naval engagement off, 454
Prussia, under Frederick William I, Chap-
ter VIII (2) ; and the Seven Years' War,
Chapter IX passim ; and the " Reversal
of Alliances," Chapter XI passim ; under
Index.
1009
Frederick II and Frederick William II,
Chapter XX; and Poland (1763-91),
Chapter XX (2) ; 21 sq. ; and Stettin, 24,
39 ; 28 ; 30 ; the Treaty of Vienna (1719)
and, 34 ; 35 ; and the Hanover Alliance,
59, 141; 147; 158; and Poland, 195,
197, 199 sq., 353 sqq., 616, 630, 765 ;
and the partition of Poland, 667 sqq. ;
and the Pragmatic Sanction, 202 ; army
of, 213 ; 229 ; and the War of the Austrian
Succeasion, 231 sqq. ; the Union of Frank-
fort and, 240 ; 245 ; 308 ; Bussia and, 314
sq., 819 sqq., 324; Tsarina Elizabeth
and, 325; 327; 393; and European
alliances, 397 sqq. ; alliance of, with
Great Britain (1756), 399 sq.; and the
Franco-Austrian alliance, 401 sq. ; treaty
of, with England, 408, 475 ; deserted by
England, 427; 428; Kaunitz and, 629;
and Bavaria, 631 ; 632 sq. ; Joseph II
and, 647 sq., 655; Leopold II and, 656;
Peter III and, 661; Catharine II and,
663 sq. ; 674 sq. ; and Turkey, 676, 778 ;
677 ; and Denmark, 755 ; Sweden and,
36, 770, 776, 779, 782, 784
Prussia, East, 217 sq. ; immigration to, 219 ;
220 sq. ; 225 ; troops in, 256 ; Eusaians
in, 264 ; 266 ; 277 ; Frederick the Great
and, 294, 300 ; 297 sq. ; Russian troops
in, 322 ; 716 ; 729 ; 732
West (Polish), Frederick II and, 251 ;
277; 291; taxation in, 712; 716; 729
sq. ; 733
Prynne, William, writings of, 813
Pskoff, Rumyantsefi'B army at, 773
Public Advertiser, 441; 444; 493; 495
Pugachoff, Jemelian, Russian Pretender,
674; 680 sq.; 689; 701
Pulteney, William. See Bath, Earl of
Punjab, the, the Emperor Babar in, 509 ;
510 sqq. ; invaded by Sikhs, 523 ; Persian
invasion of, 524
Purandhar, Treaty of, 575
Quakers, the Indemnity Acts and, 44
Quebec, lost by France, 342 ; 415 ; 446 ;
government of, 476
Queensberry, James Douglas, second Duke
of, 93
Babago, Jesuit, confessor of Ferdinand VI,
361; 364
Racine, Jean, French dramatist, 831
Radcliffe, Ann, novelist, 832
Radishcheff, Alexander Nikolaevich, Jowney
from St Petersburg to Moscow, 690; 699
Radom, Confederation of, 667
Bajastan, Moghul general, 521
Rajput clans, 508 sq. ; 512 ; 523 ; 525
Eajputana, Dara Shekoh in, 519
RAk6ozy. See Transylvania
Ralegh, Sir Walter, 65
Eambouillet, Louis XV at, 164
Ramillies, battle of, 91
Ramsay, Ja'mes, Bishop of Boss, 94
C. M. H. VI.
R4na Sanga, of Oodipur, 509 sq.
Ranke, Leopold von, 227; 732
Rantzau-Ascheberg, Count Scback Charles,
744 sq. ; recalled, 746 ; 749 sqq.
Rastatt, Treaty of, 614
Rathlou, Joachim Otto Schack, Danish
statesman, 751
Ratisbon, 237 ; and France, 247
Rayneval, Joseph - Matthias Gerard de,
French diplomatist, 380; 461
Razumoffsky, Count Alexis, husband of the
Tsarina Elizabeth, 311
Eeciff, captured by the Dutch, 389
Reding, Rudolf, Landammann of Sohwyz,'
621
Reggio, Austrian force at, 33
Reichenbach, 299 ; 656 ; Convention of,
710, 725
Prussian resident in Loudon, 210
sq.
Reitwein, castle of, Frederick the Great at,
293
Rennes, 128; Parlement of, 130, 348, 356
Bishop of. See Vaur6al
Eepnin, Prince Vasily, Russian general,
318
Prince Auikita-Ivanovioh, Russian
ambassador in Poland, 354, 628, 667
Restif de la Bretonne, Nicola3-Edm6, 833
Retz, Jean-Fran^ois-Paul de Gondi, Car-
dinal de, 130
Beval, port of, 35 sq. ; 680
Eeventlow, Count Christian Ditlev Frederick,
742 sq. ; 746 ; 756
Beverdil, Elias Solomon Francis, Swiss
philosopher, 744; 746 sqq.
Eheims, Louis XV consecrated at, 131
Rhine, campaigns on, 59, 232, 237 sq.,
240 sqq., 246, 277, 318, 645
Ehode Island, trade of, 447 ; 451 ; 453
Eicoi, Lorenzo, Jesuit, 592 sq.
Scipione, Bishop of Pistoia and
Prato, 603 sqq.
Richardson, John, and the Irish language,
487
Samuel, novelist, 823 sq.
Eichecourt, Governor of Tuscany, 600
Eichelieu, Armand-Jean du Plessis, Due de.
Cardinal, 229 ; 622
Louis-FrauQois-Armand du Plessis,
Due de, Marshal of France, 132; 239; in
the Seven Tears' War, 263, 265 sq., 267,
269 ; 337 ; 356
Eiohmond and Lennox, Charles Lennox,
third Duke of, 424; 434; leads move-
ment for Reform, 455 ; 461 sqq. ; 465 ;
and the India Bill, 467 ; 468
Bichter, Johann Paul Friedrich ("Jean
Paul"'), 824 ; 833
Eietz, Prussian Groom of the Chamber,
726
Rigby, Richard, Master of the Irish Rolls,
424; 439
Bio de Janeiro, 184 ; 390 ; French attacks
on, 391
64
1010
Index.
Bio Grande do Sul, city of, 391
Plata, Spain and, 375, 390
Bipperd&, Jan Willem, mission of to
Vienna, 139 sq. ; created Duke, 141 ; fall
of, 142 sq. ; 145 gq. ; Elisabeth Faruese
and, 166
Bivarolo, Corsican refugee, 609
Eivere, Biohard Savage, Earl, 12 sq.
Biviera, the allies on the, 243
Bobethon, Jean de, Hanoverian official, 14;
20
Bobinson, Thomas, Lord Grantham, See
Grantham
- Bochambeau, Jean-Baptiste-Donatien de
Yimeur, Count de, Marshal of France,
453
Bochester, Laurence Hyde, Earl of, 11
Bochford, William Henry Zuylestein, fourth
Earl of, 439 ; 443 ; 447
Eockingham, Charles Watson-Wentworth,
second Marquis of, 424 ; 428 ; 434 ; First
Lord of the Treasury, 435 ; 438 ; and
Chatham, 442; 444 sq. ; 448; 450; and
Ireland, 455 ; 456 ; ministry of, 457 sqq. ;
501 ; and Warren Hastings, 581 ; death
of, 460 sq., 466, 501
Bodney, George Brydges Bodney, Lord,
Admiral, 376 sq. ; 379 ; conquers Mar-
tinique, 426 ; 452 ; in the West Indies,
453 sq., 462
Boe, Sir Thomas, ambassador to the Em-
peror Jehtogir, 515 sq.
Bohan, Armand- Gaston -Maximilien de,
Cardinal, 131
Bohilkhand, 524 ; campaign in, 569 sq,
Bohillas, the, 569 sq. ; 572 ; 582 sq.
Boll, Schultheiss of Solothurn, 615
Bomaine, William, popular preacher, 79
Bomantic movement in European literature,
the. Chapter XXTV
Bome, Jacobites in, 110, 113 ; Alberoni at,
125 ; 586 ; Jesuits in, 595 ; 626
Bomney, Henry Sidney, Earl of (Viscount
Sydney), 493 sq.
Bondeau, Claudius, EngUsh envoy at St
Petersburg, 806 ; 308
Bonuow, Charles of Lorraine at, 234
Bopscha, murder of Peter III at, 662 sq.
Boqueteuil, Count de, French naval officer,
110; 239
Bosas, the Old Pretender at, 105
Bosenburg, Count, Austrian envoy to St
Petersburg, 317
Bosenkrone, Baron Marcus Gerhard, Danish
Foreign Minister, 754
Bosiorucians in Germany, 725 sqq.
BoBsbach, battle of, 270 sqq., 280, 286, 290,
296, 299, 408
Bosslyn, Alexander Wedderburn, first Earl
of (Lord Loughborough), 425 ; 441 ; 444 ;
450 ; and the India Bill, 467 ; 478
Eostoff, Archbishop of. See Mazeievich
Eothembourg, Count of, French ambassador
at Madrid, 146 sq. ; 150 ; 155
Eotheuburg, Austrians at, 292
Bouooux, battle of, 247, 331
Eouen, Parlement of, 348
Bouilll, Antoine-Louis, French Minister of
Foreign Affairs, 333 ; 335 ; 338
Bous, Sir John, 456
Bousseau, Jean-Jacques, 165 ; 795 ; the
writings of, 823 sqq., 828 sq., 834 sq,
Bonssillon, Spain and, 141
Boxburghe, John Eer, first Duke of, 107
Bubi, Marquis of. Governor of Madrid,
882
Eucellai, Tuscan minister, 602
Budbeck, Thure, Marshal of the Swedish
Diet, 764; 776
Eiigen, Sweden and, 37; 276
Bumyantsefi, Alexander, Eussian general,
307
Peter, Bussian general, 280 ; in
Pomerania, 286 sq. ; 828 ; 647 ; 697 ; 773
Euremonde, Austria and, 631
Bussia, under Anne and Elizabeth, Chap-
ter S; under Catharine H, Chapter XIX;
and Sweden, Chapter XXII passim, 26,
36; 21 ; 28; Alberoni and, 30, 31; 32 sq.;
39 ; and the Polish war, 62 ; and Spain,
142, 145, 378 ; 143 ; 147 ; and Poland,
193 sqq., 199 sq., 616, 628 sqq. ; and the
Pragmatic Sanction, 202 sq. ; relations
of, with Prussia, 206 sq. ; 209 ; army of,
213 ; 218 ; and the Austrian Succession,
228 ; 243 ; withdraws from Silesia, 244 ;
250; Austria and, 252 sq.; 255; 262;
and the Seven Years' War, 277, 279 ; and
Prussia, 298 sqq., 346, 630 sq., 702 sq.,
705 sqq.; 343; 352; and the Eastern
question, 353 ; 354 ; at war with Turkey,
355 ; 357 ; and the Anglo-Prussian al-
liance, 400 sqq.; 409; Great Britain and,
436, 460, 462, 477 ; Eastern advance of,
528 ; 629 sqq. ; Austria and, 633 ; and the
Treaty of Kutchuk-Kainardji, 634; 647
sq. ; Joseph H and, 655; Saxony and,
704 ; and the Peace of Tesohen, 707 ; and
Turkey, 709; 725; and Poland and
Prussia (1763-91), 729 sqq.; Denmark
and, 740 sqq.; and Sohleswig-Holstein,
753 ; treaty of, with Denmark, 754; 755;
831
Little, Catharine II and, 693 sqq.
Bed, 630 ; 669
White, 630; 669 sq.
Bussian Academy of Sciences, 697
Company, in Berlin, 324
Eutland, Charles Manners, fourth Duke of,
Lord-lieutenant of Ireland, 468, 503 ;
Lord Privy Seal, 468; death of, 474,
505
Eutledge, Walter, Jacobite, 111
Euuth, Eric, Swedish President of Finance,
777 sq.
Byswyk, Peace of, 12, 82, 151
Saale river, Soubise at, 268, 270 sqq. ; 297
Sabar4, discovery of gold at, 390
Sabran, Madame de, 134
Index.
1011
Sacheverell, Henry, 47; 78; 80; 815; 817
Saoken, Baron von, Saxon ambassador to
Bussia, 704
Sackville, George Sackyille Germain, Vis-
count (Lord George Germain), 377 sq. ;
435 ; 447 ; 449
Sacramento, capture and restoration of,
370 ; 374 sq.
Sadras, 454; conference at, 542
Saftingen, 642 ; Austrian vessel stopped at,
643; 645
Saint-Andr£, Count, Austrian general, 281
St Chiistopher, British fleet at, 452 ; 454 ;
464
St Croix, sold by France, 738
St Dominique, France and, 351 sq.
St Eustatius, 186; 448; captured by the
French, 454
St Gallen, Abbot of, 614 sq.
Saint-Germain, the Old Pretender at, 91
St Germain, Count Louis, Field-marshal)
742 sq.; 745
St Helens, AUeyne Fitzherbert, Lord, 380
St Jacob on the Birs, battle of, 612
St James' Ghronicle, 440
St John's, Newfoundland, capture of, 426
Saint-Lambert, Jean-Franf ois, Marquis de,
poet, 827
St Lawrence, Gulf of, fishing rights in,
428
river, the French on, 188
St Lucia, France and, 185; 186; 332;
347; British occupation of, 426; assigned
to France, 428 ; 451 ; 464
St Luke, Academy of, 589
St Malo, the Old Pretender at, 102
St Petersburg, British mission to, 34; 197;
Stanislaus Poniatowski at, 200 ; 253 ;
Bussian Court moved to, 303 ; 312 ; 314 ;
the Botta-Lopukhina conspiracy at, 315
sq. ; 318 1 the Marquis de Ch&teauneuf at,
322; 324; 326 sq.; 657 sq.; revolution
in, 662 ; Prince Henry of Prussia at, 668,
731 ; 669 ; the centre of government,
682; 688; the Bussian capital, 700;
732; 778; Convention of (1755), 320;
Treaty of (1747), 318, (1772), 630 ; Free
Economic Society of, 689
St Pierre, 346 ; ceded to France, 428, 464
Saint-Pierre, Jacques-Henri Bernardin de,
702 ; 827
St Folten, the Elector of Bavaria at, 232
St Saphorin, British minister at Vienna,
30; 39
Saint-S^v^rin, French plenipotentiary at
Aix-la-Chapelle, 381
Saint-Simon, Claude-Henri, Count de,
French socialist, 836
Louis de Eouvroi, Due de,
127 sq. ; 132 ; 135 sq.
St Vincent, island of, 185 ; 882 ; capture
of, 346 ; 426 ; assigned to Great Britain,
428; 452; 464
Salabat Jang, Subahdar of the Dekhan,
540; 546; 549
Salas, Montealgro di, Neapolitan statesman,
596 sq.
Salbai, Treaty of, 576 sq.
Saldanha, Cardinal, and the Jesuits, 386,
592
Saldern, Caspar von, and the Schleswig-
Holstein question, 758
Salsette, island of, British occupation of,
575 ; 676
Salzburg, emigration from, 218 ; 647
Aichbishop of. See Firmian
Sambaji, Maratha chief, 521 sq.
San Caetano, Ignacio de. Grand Inquisitor
of Portugal, 388
Domingo, Republic of, 189
Company of (French), 173,
533
Fernando de Omoa, 378
Gennaro, Order of, 598
ndefonso, Philip V at, 134, 137, 146;
166; the Family Compact ratified at,
844; 361; 891
Salvador (Bahia). See Bahia
Sebastian, captured by the French,
34
Stefano, Neapolitan minister, 596
Sancroft, William, Archbishop of Canter-
bury, 798
Sanderson, Sir William, historian, 807
Sandwich, John Montagu, fourth Earl of,
at Aix-la-Chapelle, 331 ; 424 ; 430 ; First
Lord of the Admiralty, 430 ; 431 ; 443 sq. ;
456
Sandys, Samuel Sandys, Lord, 425
Santa Catharina, island of, captured by
Spain, 375, 391
Cruz, the Danes in, 186
Cruz, de Marzenado, Alvar de Navia
Osorio, Marquis de, Spanish general, 151
Santander, Spanish squadron at, 125
Sao Paulo, settlement at, 390
Sapieha, Casimir, Grand Hetman of Lithu-
ania, 192
Sardinia, Spanish invasion of, 29 ; 35 sq. ;
124 ; transferred to Victor Amadeus, 126 ;
139 ; 154 ; and the Pragmatic Sanction,
203 ; 213 ; and the Austrian Succession,
228 sq. ; 239 ; and Lombardy, 245 ; and
the Peace of Aix-la-Chapelle, 249 ; 250 ;
and Great Britain, 477 ; and the Papacy,
589 sq., 594 ; Naples and, 597 ; 608 ; and
Corsica, 609 sq. ; 623
Saros, county of, 703
Sarpi, Pietro (Pra Paolo), 594
Sarria, Marquis of, Spanish general, 368
Sasawa river, Prussian troops at, 241 ; 259
Saumaise, Claude de, 798
Saunders, Sir Charles, First Lord of the
Admiralty, 487
Thomas, Governor of Madras, 541
Savannah, French fleet at, 452
Savanore, Bussy at, 546
Naw&b of, 641
Savile, Sir George, politician, 454
Savona, Maillebois' forces at, 245
1012
Index.
Savoy, the Quadruple Alliance and, 31,
124 ; 139 ; 149 ; Prance and, 152 ; 158 sq. ;
regained by Sardinia, 249; and Genoa,
608; and Switzerland, 628
Duchess Anna Maria of, 8
Savoy-Carignan, House of, 6
Sawbridge, John, Lord Mayor of Loudon,
465
Saze-Teschen, Duchess Maria Christina of,
649; 651
Duke Albert of, 649
Saxe-Hildburghausen, Prince Joseph of,
263 sq. ; 265 ; 267 sq.
Saxony, and the Seven Tears' War, Chap-
ter IX passim ; 38 ; and the War of
the Polish Succession, 196 sq. ; under
Count von Bruhl, 198 ; 206 ; array of,
213 ; and the Pragmatic Sanction, 228,
310 ; and the War of the Austrian Succes-
sion, 231, 250 ; 235 ; 248 ; Bussia and,
815; Frederick the Great declares war
against, 317; 318; 320; Prussian invasion
of, 321, 326, 338 sq., 408 ; 632 ; and
Poland, 665 ; Prussia and, 703 sqq.; and
the Peace of Tescheu, 707; 720; 725;
734
Maurice, Count of. Marshal of France,
110 sq. ; 232 ; in the Low Countries, 239
sq., 242, 246 sqq.; 318; 362; 640
Henry the Lion, Duke of, 2
— — Frederick Augustus I, Elector of. See
Augustus II, King of Poland
Frederick Augustus II, Elector of.
See Augustus lU, King of Poland
Frederick Christian, Elector of, 199
Maria Antonia Walpurgis, Electress
of, 199
Prince Xavier of, 354
Princess Mary of, 316
Scania, Denmark and, 735
Scarborough, Bichard Lumley-Saunderson,
fourth Earl of, 431
Scharding, Bavarian repulse at, 288 ; 286
Schatzlar, Pass of, Prussian army at, 242
Schaub, Sir Luke, diplomatist, 30 sq.
Soheffer, Count Carl Fredrik, Swedish
statesman, 762 sq. ; 767
Scheldt river, 247; 470; navigation of,
641 sqq. ; 652
Scherbatoff, Prince, 688
Sohiedlow, Austrian forces near, 292
Schiller, Johann Christoph Friedrich von,
827 ; 830 sq. ; 834
Schimmelmann, Henrik Karl, Baron, 751
Sohleswig, Denmark and, 37, 736; 661;
743
Schleswig-Holatein, 741 sq. ; 753
Paul, Duke of. See Paul I, Tsar
Schlitz-Gortz, Baron Friedrich Wilhelm
von, Hanoverian statesman, 20
Schlflsselbnrg, prison of, 660 sq. ; 680
Schmottseifen, Prussian camp at, 292
Sohon, Theodor von, 209
Schonfeld, Prussian general, 656
Schrader, Hanoverian envoy to Sweden, 84
Sohroeder, General, defeated at Tumhout,
652
Schroderheim, Elis, Swedish Vicar-general,
776
Sohiitz, Baron Georg Wilhelm Helvig von,
Hanoverian envoy in London, 15 sq.
Baron Ludwig Justus von, 4 ; Hano-
verian envoy in London, 9 ; 12
Schulenburg, Ehrengard Melusina von. See
Kendal, Duchess of
Schulin, Johann Sigismund, Danish states-
man, 740 ; 742
Schusterinsel, occupied by the French, 628
Schwedt, occupied by Bussians, 280, 286
Sehweidnitz, siege of, 264; 273; 275 sq.;
297; 299; 828
Schwerin, Kurt Christoph, Count, Prussian
Field-marshal, 227 ; 248 ; 256 sqq. ; death
of, 259 .
Schwyz, canton of, 611 ; 625
SoUly Isles, Wesley in, 83
Scio, Turkish defeat off, 673
Scotland, Jacobitism and the Union in.
Chapter III passim ; 34 ; Wesley in, 83,
86; 169; Jacobite rising in, 243; 469;
476
Scott, John, Earl of Eldon. See Eldon
Sir Walter, 831 sqq.
Scotti, Marquis, Parmesan envoy to Spain,
189
Seaforth, William Mackenzie, fifth Earl of,
100 ; 102 sq. ; 105
Sebald, Carl Fredrik, Gustavns III and,
769
Seckendorf , Friedrich Heinrich, Count von,
Austrian Field-marshal, 210 sq. ; 236;
288 ; in Bavaria, 241 sq.
Sedaine, Miohel-Jean, French dramatist,
823
Segovia, Bipperd^ at, 143
SSgur, Louis-Philippe, Count, French am-
bassador at St Petersburg, 697
Selden, John, jurist, 800
Selim, Prince. See Jehdngir, Moghul
Emperor
Seller, Abednego, History of Passive
Obedience, 807
Sempach, battle of, 617
Sempill, Francis, Jacobite, 109 sqq.
Senegal, France and, 847 ; 428 ; 452 ; ceded
to France, 464
Company of, 178, 583
Senegambia, the English in, 187
Senneterre, Count, French diplomatist, 35
Serbelloni, Austrian general, 257 ; 260 ;
277
Seringapatam, attack on, 475
Servia, invasion of, 673 ; 675
Sestri Levante, Alberoni at, 125
Seton Castle, Jacobites at, 99
Sevastopol, 648 ; port of, 675 sq.
Seven Tears' War, Chapter IX
Seville, the Spanish Court at, 166; Treaty
of (1729), 60 sq., 64, 149, 202
Sevres, Auatro-French negotiations at, 335
Index.
1013
Seydlitz, Friedrich Wilhelm von, Prussian
general, 265; 270 sqq.; 283 sqq.
Shaftesbury, Anthony Ashley Cooper, first
Earl of, 808
Shah Alam, Moghnl Emperor, 524 ; invades
Bengal, 569 ; 561 ; 563 ; and the Marathas,
568 ; 569
Jeh4n, Moghul Emperor, 515; 517
sq. ; deposed, 519 ; 520
Shahryar, son of the Emperor Jehangir,
517
Shannon, Henry Boyle, Earl of, 448 sq. ;
494
Sharp, Granville, and the abolition of
slavery, 188; 472
Shelbume, second Earl of. See Lansdowne,
first Marquis of
Shelley, John, Treasurer of the Household,
437
Percy Bysshe, 825 ; 828 sqq. ; 834 sq.
Shenstone, William, poet, 830
Sher Shah, Afghan chief, 510 sq.
Sheridan, Bichard Brinsley, 462 sq. ;
Treasurer of the Navy, 464
Sir Thomas, Jacobite, 111
SherifEmuir, battle of, 100; 102
Shiel, Loch, Prince Charles at, 112
Shippen, William, Jacobite, 395
Sholingar, English victory at, 577
Shnjah, Prince, son of Shah Jeh^n, 519
Shuja-ud-daul4, Naw&b Wazir of Oudh,
555; 561; 563; and Hastings, 569;
and the BohUlas, 570 ; 578 sq.
Shumacher, family of, 625
Shnvalofi, Alexander, 311
Peter, 311
Siberia, 302 ; banishments to, 312, 315, 690
Sibthorpe, Robert, royalist divine, 803 ; 807
Sich, community of, 695
Sicilies, the Two, 139 ; ceded to Don Carlos,
203 ; the Papacy and, 586 ; 597 ; under
Charles III, 600
Sidly, 29 ; Spanish attack on, 32 sqq. ;
38 ; Spain and, 124 sq. ; transferred to
Charles VI, 126; 151 sq.; 153; 155;
Don Carlos in, 167 ; and the Papacy,
587, 588 sq. ; 596
Siddi, Moghul admiral, 531
Sidney, Algernon, writings of, 791, 803
sqq., 815, 818
Siena, claims to, 138; 152
Sieniawska, Fani, marries Prince Augustus
Gzartoryski, 198
Sierra Leone Company, 188
Sievers, Count Johann Jakob, 683 ; 692
Sikhs, the, in the Punjab, 523 ; 524
Silesia, and the War of the Austrian
Succession, Chapter VIII (3) passim;
Frederick II invades, 158; 197; 204;
206 ; 209 sq. ; acquired by Prussia, 250 ;
276; 280; 288; Austrians in, 289; 310;
316 sqq. ; SoltikofE in, 325 sq. ; 327 ;
338 sq. ; the Treaty of Hubertusburg and,
346 ; 352 ; 398 ; 401
Austrian, insurrection in, 628 ; 629 ;
Prussian army iii, 704 sq. ; 707; 709;
industries of, 718 sq.; 721; 724; economic
conditionSjin, 715 sq.; 729
Silhouette, Etienne de. Commissary of the
French India Company, 5i%
Simbach, surrender of, 238
Sinclaire, Baron Malcolm, murdered, 309
Sinde, the Emperor Hum&yun in, 311; 512
Sinzendorff, Count Philipp Ludwig von,
139 sq. ; 204 ; 229
Siraj-ud-daula, Naw&b of Bengal, 551 sqq. ;
death of, 555 ; Clive and, 556 sq.
Sirhind, the Emperor Hum&yun at, 511
Sistova, Treaty of, 656
Sivaji, Maratha chief, 521
Sluys, taken by the French, 247
Smith, Adam, 45 ; 51 ; and the Colonial
System, 56
Smolensk, Catharine II and, 694
Smollett, Tobias George, 79
Smolna, school at, 692
Sobieski, James, and the Polish crown, 191
Maria Clementina, 37 ; 105
Society for commemorating the Bevolution,
477
for Constitutional Information, 477
of the Bill of Eights, 477
Sohr, Prussian victory at, 242
Soissons, Congress of, 147
Solano, Josi, Spanish admiral, 377 ; 453
Solimoes river, Jesuits on, 390
Solms, Victor Friedrich, Count von, Prussian
diplomat, 732
Solothnrn, canton of, 612 ; 625
Soltikoff, Count Peter, Bussian Commander-
in-chief, 291 sqq. ; 297 ; 323 ; at Kuners-
dorf, 324 ; 325 ; superseded, 326
Solyman. See Suleiman
Sommerschanz, Fort, captured, 197
Sonnenfels, Joseph von, 635
Sonora, Joseph de Galvez, Marquis de,
Spanish general, 382
Sophia Charlotte, Queen of Prussia
(Eleotress of Brandenburg), 2; 8; 205
Dorothea, wife of George I, 3
Dorothea, Queen of Prussia, 2 sq. ; 210
Magdalena, Queen of Christian VI
of Denmaxk, 738 sq.
Magdalena, Queen of Oustavus III of
Sweden, 741
Soubise, Charles de Bohan, Prince de.
Marshal of France, 263 sqq. ; 269 sqq. ;
at Eossbaoh, 272, 341 ; 274 ; 426
Sound Dues, the, Swedish exemption from,
37
Soupire, de, French commander in Southern
India, 547
Sousa Coutinho, Francisco de, Portuguese
diplomat, 375
South Sea Company, 39; 41; 45; 61;
Spain and, 64 sqq. ; 146 ; 151 ; 157 ;
origin and history of, 177 sqq. ; 363 ; 530
Southesk, James Carnegie, fifth Earl of,
98; 103
Southey, Eobert, writings of, 832; 836
64—3
1014
Index,
Southwaik, Jacobite trials at, 117
Spain, the Bourbon Government in (1714-
26), Chapter IV ; (1727-46), Chapter V ;
(1746-94), Chapter XII (1); 4; 21; 25;
29 ; and the Quadruple Alliance, 31, 85,
38 ; at war with Great Britain and France,
33 sq. ; 37 eqq. ; 57 ; and the Austro-
Spauish union, 58 sq. ; declares war
against England, 59 ; signs the Treaty
of Seville, 60 ; 61 sq. ; England and,
64 sqq. ; and the Jacobites, 97, 104,
106 ; 178 ; and the American trade, 183
sq. ; and the West Indies, 186, 851 ;
and South America, 189 sq. ; and the
Pragmatic Sanction, 202 sq. ; and the
Austrian Succession, 228 sq. ; and the
War of the Austrian Succession, 231 sq. ;
and the war in Italy, 287 ; and the Second
Family Compact, 239 ; 245 ; and the
Peace of Aix-la-Chapelle, 249 ; 252; 334;
342 ; and the Family Compact, 344 sq. ;
846; and the Treaty of Paris (1763),
847 ; and France, 350 sq. ; Nova Colonia
ceded to, 386 ; and Brazil, 389 sqq. ;
Pitt and, 418 sq. ; and Great Britain,
421, 426, 449, 463, 471 ; and the Treaty
of Paris, 428 sq. ; and the Falkland
Isles, 437, 443 ; and the Nootka Sound
affair, 473, 477 ; and the Papacy, 587 sq.,
590, 594 ; the Jesuits in, 591 sqq. ; and
Naples, 596 ; and Genoa, 608 ; and the
United Provinces, 641 ; Sweden and,
784 ; 823
Sparre, Baron, Swedish minister in Paris,
104
Spencer, George John Spencer, second
Earl, 478
Governor of Bengal, 558
Herbert, 821
Spener, Philip Jakob, 226
Spenser, Edmnnd, poet, 829 sq.
Spremberg, Hadik's troops near, 292
Sprengtporteu, Baron Jakob Magnus,
Colonel of the Nyland Dragoons, 770
Sqnillaci, Marquis of, Spanish statesman,
367 ; 370 sq.
Stade, Danish occupation of, 23 ; 24 ; 263 ;
266; 272
Stael[-Holstein], Anne - Louise - Germaine
Necker, Baroness de, 836
Stafa, agitation at, 625
Stafford, Cumberland's army at, 114 ; 496
Granville Leveson-Gower, first Marquis
of (second Earl Gower), 424 ; President of
the Council, 439, 468; 4:50; 457; 464
and the Pitt administration, 467
George Granville Leveson-Gower,
seconC Marquis of (third Earl Gower)
recalled from Paris, 477
Stair, John Dalrymple, second Earl of, 38
70; 237
StallupOnen, Russians at, 264
Stambul, 305 ; peace negotiations at, 308
Stanhope, Charles Stanhope, third Earl
(Viscount Mahon), 467 '
Stanhope, Charles, and the South Sea
Company, 41, 181
James Stanhope, first Earl, 13 ; 21 ;
Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs,
22 ; mission of, to Vienna, 23 ; 26 sq. ;
29 sq. ; and the Quadruple Alliance, 31 ;
35 ; and Spain, 83, 38 sq. ; 41 ; 104 ;
207
William. See Harrington, Earl of
Stanislaus Leszczynski, Eing of Poland,
148 ; 152 ; 155 sq. ; 192 ; and the Polish
Succession, 193 sqq. ; re-elected King,
195; abdicates, 197; at Nancy, 199;
303; 310
(II) Poniatowski, King of Poland,
200;. 334 ; 628; election of, 666 sq. ; 671;
729 sq. ; 765
Stanley, Hans, British envoy at Paris, 348 ;
845; 418; 420
Starhemberg, Count George Adam, 140;
Imperial ambassador at Paris, 252, 254,
333; and the Treaty of Versailles, 337
sqq. ; 841 sq. ; 400
Gundacker, Austrian Minister of
Finance, 204
Staszic, Xavier Stanislas, Polish writer, 671
Stavuchanak, battle of, 807 sq.
Steelboy rising in Ireland, 491
Stein, Heinrich Friedrioh Karl, Freiherr
vom und zum, Prussian statesman, 728
Steinau, Prussian force at, 230
Stepney, George, diplomat, 8
Stettin, 24 ; 36 ; 39 ; acquired by Prussia,
206 sq., 209; 218; 266; 298; ship-
building at, 718
Stewart of Ardshiel, 111 sq.
Archibald, Provost of Edinburgh,
112 sq.
John, Jacobite, 109
Stirling, 92 ; Jacobite advance on, 99 sq. ;
102 ; Gardiner's Horse at, 112 ; 115
Stirlingshire, Jacobitism In, 93
Stockholm, 36; the Hat party at, 308;
Prince Henry of Prussia at, 668 ; 740 ;
760 sq. ; 765 sq. ; conspiracy at, 771 ;
775 ; 778 sq. ; 780 ; Gustavus III assas-
sinated at, 784
T Treaty of, 106
Stolpen, camp of, 288; 289
Stone, Andrew, Under-Secretary of State,
488
George, Archbishop of Armagh,
488 sq.
Stormont, Viscount. See Mansfield, David
Murray, second Earl of
Stornoway, Jacobites at, 105
Stradella Pass, seized by Sardinians, 245
Strafford, Thomas Wentworth, first Earl
of, 786
Stralsund, 24; fall of, 25; 87; 276;
blockade of, 277; 279
Strassburg, 123 ; Austria and, 141 ; 144 ;
238
Strathallan, James Drummond, fifth Vis-
count, 117
Index.
1016
Straubing, French army at, 236 aq.
Straudenz, Prussian army at, 242
Strickland, Francis, Jacobite, HI
Struensee, Charles Augustus, 747
John Frederick, Count, Danish
statesman, 735 ; 744 ; 746 sqq. ; execu-
tion of, 750 ; 751 ; 756
Styria, Austria and, 204; 628
Suarez, Prussian Privy Councillor, 728
Suboff, Plato, and Catharine II, 696
Sudermauia, Charles, Duke of, 779
Suffolk, Henry Howard, Earl of, 443 sq. ;
450
Snffren de Saint-Tropez, Pierre-Andr^ de,
French admiral, 454 ; 469 ; 577
Sahm, Peter Friderik af, Danish historian,
750
Suleiman the Great, Sultan, 507
Snlzbach, House of, 231
Charles Theodore, Count Palatine of,
631
Sumatra, Great Britain and, 429
Sunderland, Charles Spencer, third Earl of,
40 sq.; 70; 181
Surat, regained by France, 464 ; 621 ;
Treaty of, 575
Surman, Firman of, 559
Sutherland, John Gordon, fifteenth or six-
teenth Earl of, 99 sqq.
Sutton, Sir Bobert, and the Peace of
Passarowitz, 32 ; at Paris, 38
Suvoroff, Alexander Vasilievich, Bussiau
general, 697
Sveaborg, Finnish fortress, 770 ; 775 ; 779
Svenskund, battle of, 782
Svyesti Krest, evacuated by Eussia, 304
Swabia, Austria and, 204; 238
Sweden, 1721-92, Chapter XXII; 21; 24
sqq. ; peace negotiations with, 28 ; 30 ;
33 sqq. ; joins the Hanover Alliance, 59 ;
and the Jacobites, 104, 106 ; Spain and,
142 ; 194 ; and Stettin, 206 sq. ; and the
Seven Teai's' War, 255, 262, 268, 277,
298; and Bussia, 308 sqq., 813 sq., 320
sq., 323 ; Pomeranian frontier of, 327 ;
339 ; France and, 349, 352, 358 ; 353 sq. ;
and Prussia, 408 sq. ; and Poland, 665 ;
treaty of with Eussia, 676; 720; and
Denmark, 36 sq., 735, 740 sqq., 753,
755 sq.
Swieten, Geraard van, 635
Swift, Jonathan, Drapier's Letters, 483
Switzerland, 1712-93, Chapter XVH ; the
Eomantio movement in, 827
Sydney, Henry Sidney, Yiseount. See
Eomney, Earl of
Thomas Townshend, Viscount, 462;
468
Syracuse, citadel of, 153
Syria, the Osmanli Sultans and, 507
Tabor, Austrian army in, 2.S3
Taborberg, Austrian force on, 257
Talbot, William, Bishop of Salisbury, 43
Tamasp, Shah of Persia, 507; 511 sq.
Tamerlane, 506; 509
Tanjore, disputed succession in, 538; 540
sq. ; bombardment of, 547 ; 548
Tauucci, Bernardo, Marquis di, Neapolitan
statesman, 592 sq. ; and the Papacy, 594 ;
597; 699
Tapanuli, ceded to Great Britain, 429
Targowicz, Confederation of, 782
Tarlo, Adam, Palatine of Lublin, 194 ; 197
Tartars, 306; rising of, 681; 674
Tartary, Crimean, 634
Tauria, acquired by Eussia, 675
Tavanti, Tuscan Minister of Finance, 602
Tavora, Marquis of, 386
Marchioness of, 386
Tchesm^, 355 ; 633 ; battle of, 673
Temesvar, Banat of, 626
Temple, Bichard Temple Grenville, Earl,
419; 424; resigns, 426; 430 sq. ; dis-
missed, 432 ; 434 sqq. ; and the Letters of
Junius, 441 ; 442
- — George Nugent-Temple-Grenville,
Earl. See Buckingham, Marquis of
Tenciu, Pierre Gu^rin de, Cardinal, 110;
239
Teplitz, Austrian magazine at, 257
Ternay, Admiral, 453
Terray, Joseph-Marie, French statesman,
356 sq. ; 359
Teschen, Treaty of, 632 sq., 677, 707
Tess^, Mans-Jean-Baptiste-Beu^ de Frou-
lay. Count de. Marshal of France, am-
bassador in Spain, 137; 140; 165
Tessin, Count Carl Gustav, Swedish states-
man, 769 sqq.
Nicodemus, Swedish architect, 759
Tetschen, the Preliminaries of Breslau and,
236
Theden, Johann Christian Anton, Prussian
Surgeon-general, 725
Theodore, King of Corsica. See Neuhof
Thomson, James, poet, 77; 823; 827 sq. ;
830
Thorn, captured by Bussia, 196; 291; 669;
671 ; Prussia and, 708 sq. ; 734
Thucydides, Hobbes' translation of, 792
Thugut, Baron Franz Maria, Austrian
statesman, 634
Thunberg, Daniel af, Swedish architect,
775
Thurgau, canton of, 613
Thuringia, Prussian army in, 264, 268;
269; 274 sq.
Thurlow, Edward Thnrlow, Lord, Lord
Chancellor, 443 sq.; 450; 457 sq. ; 462;
464; and the India Bill, 467; 468; and
the Eegeney Bill, 474
Thurot, Francois, French naval com-
mander, 489
Tiagya, Seraskier, defends OohakofE, 307
Tipu Sultan, 469; 475; 577
Tobago, 185 eq. ; 322 ; assigned to Great
Britain, 428; reduced by de Grasse, 453;
464
Todtleben, General, 326
1016
Index.
Torring, Ignaz Felix, Count von, Bavarian
general, 233
Toggenburg, the Empire and, 613 sqq.
Toland, John, in Hanover, 8
Toll, Johan ^^istofier, Swedish etatesman,
770; 776 sqq.
Tolstoi, Count Feter, Bussian statesman,
302
Tooke, John Home (John Home), 441 ;
444
Torcy, Jean-Baptiste Colbert, Marquis de,
French statesman, 98
Tordesillas, Treaty of, 390
Torgau, 265 ; 267 sq. ; 273 ; battle of, 296
Torrigiaui, Cardinal, Minister of Clement
XIII, 692
Torrington, George Byng, Viscount, in the
Baltic, 28 ; annihilates Spanish fleet,
32 sq., 104; 93
Tortona, 155; Maillebois' forces at, 245
Tott, Franpois, Baron de, in Turkey, 355
Toulon, the plague at, 128 ; 160 ; 236 sq. ;
239; fortifications at, 350
Toulouse, Count of, 129 sq.
Countess of, 164
Tournay, fall of, 242
Toussaint I'Ouverture, negro leader, 185
Townley, Francis, Jacobite, 114
Tonnshend, Charles Townsheud, second
Viscount, 16 ; 18 ; Secretary of State for
Foreign Affairs, 22; dismissed, 27; 39;
41 ; 57 ; and Gibraltar, 58 ; forms the
Hanover Alliance, 59 ; dismissed, 60 ; 61 ;
and the Jacobite rising, 102; 417
Charles, 430 ; 435 ; Chancellor of the
Exchequer, 436; 437; death of, 438
George Townshend, fourth Viscount
and first Marquis, 438; 440; 464; Lord-
lieutenant of Ireland, 492 sqq.
Thomas, Viscount Sydney. See
Sydney
Tranent, Cope at, 113
Transylvania, Francis II Bakdczy, Prince
of, 31; 197
Trapani, citadel of, 153
Traquair, Earl of, 109 ; 111
Traun, Count Otto Ferdinand, Austrian
general, 163; 237; on the Bhine, 240;
241
Trautmannsdorfl, Prince Ferdinand, Mi-
nister Plenipotentiary in the Austrian
Netherlands, 651
Travancore, Bilja of, 475 sq.
Treiden, Benigna von, Duchess of Courland.
See Courland
Treuenbrietzen, Imperial army in, 296
Triohinopoly, 640; besieged, 541; 542
Trier, Francis Lewis, Elector of, 202
Francis George, Elector of, 231
Trieste, 153; and Mediterranean trade, 606;
639
Triucomalee, 454; taken by the French,
469
Trinidad, cocoa plantations of, 186
Trinomali, Haidar Ali defeated at, 567
Tripoli, Spain and, 381; Denmark and,
766
TroUe, Henrik af, Swedish admiral, 775
Troppau, the FreUminaries of Breslau and,
285
Trubetskoy, Prince Nikita, 312
Tsarskoe Selo, church of, 322
Tullibardine, William Murray, Marquis of,
98 ; 103 ; 105 sq. ; 111
Tunis, French expedition against, 850;
Spain and, 381; Venice and, 606
Tupac Amaru, Peruvian leader, 381
Turgot, Anne-Bobert-Jacques, Baron de
I'Aulne, 830
Turin, Treaty of, 152 sqq.
Turkey, 21; 194; Austria and, 203;
Charles XII in, 206; at war with Bussia
(1736-9), 304 sqq.; and the Treaty of
Constantinople, 308; and Bussia, 314,
817 sq., 321 ; France and, 849, 362 ; the
political situation in, 358; 354; at war
with Bussia, 355; and the Treaty of
Eutchuk-Eainardji, 358, 634 ; and Bussia,
629 sq., 648; 654; makes peace with
Austria, 656 ; and the Partition of Poland,
668; 672 sqq.; Catharine U and, 708;
and Bussia, 709, 730 sqq. ; Sweden and,
778
Turnhout, Austrian defeat at, 652
Tuscany, 29; Spain and, 60; Elisabeth
Farnese and, 122 ; 124 ; 126 ; Don Carlos
and, 138, 150; 139; 152; 155; the suc-
cession in, 156 ; 158 ; 167 ; the Treaty of
Seville and, 202 ; clerical domination in,
590 ; 597 ; under the Grand Duke Leo-
pold, 600 sq. ; 655
Cosimo (I) de' Medici, Grand Duke
of, 138; 152
Francis II, Grand Duke of. See
Francis I, Emperor
Giovanni Gastone de' Medici, Grand
Duke of, 138 ; 147 ; 156
Leopold, Grand Duke of. See Leo-
pold II, Emperor
Maria Louisa, Grand Duchess of,
601
Tyrell, James, Patriareha non Monarcha,
803
Tyrol, Austria and, 204; 243
Uckermark, the, Swedish troops in, 280,
287, 294, 296
Uddevalla, Convention at, 780
Ukraine, the, partisans of Stanislaus in,
197 ; 302 ; the lines of the, 305 sqq. ;
324; Catharine II and, 695
Ulloa, Antonio de, Spanish Governor of
Louisiana, 873
Spanish geographer and econo-
mist, 157
Ulrica Eleonora, Queen of Sweden, 28:
761
Ulster, 482; Presbyterians of, 383 ; disturb-
ances in, 490 ; 491 ; 495 ; Volunteers of.
IiideoG.
lOir
Unigenitus, Bull of Clement XI, 588 ; 131 ;
163 ; Benedict XIV and, 591 ; 637
United Provinoes ol the Netherlands {see
also Holland), i; and Great Britain,
28 sqq. ; and the Quadruple Alliance,
30 sq. ; deoUne of, 32, 250 ; and Spanish
America, 65; and the Jacobite rising, 99;
signs the Preliminaries of Paris, 146 ;
and the Austrian Succession, 228, 281;
Marshal Saxe in, 239 sq. ; George II and,
242; 243 sq.; France and, 246 sq.; and
the Peace of Aix-la-CbapeUe, 249 ; France
and, 299, 331, 334, 389 ; 337 ; the Treaty
of Yersailles and, 401 ; and Great Britain,
449, 460, 462, 475 ; 464 ; France declares
war against, 477 ; 626 ; Austria and, 640 ;
641 ; and the navigation of the Scheldt,
642 Bqq. ; 652 ; 744
United States of America (see also America,
British), 188; 456; Great Britain and,
449 sq. ; 457 ; and peace with Great
Britain, 462 sqq. ; 798
Unterwalden, canton of, 613
Uri, canton of, 613 ; rising against, 625
Ursins, Princesse des. See Orsini
Usbegs, the, 508 sq. ; besiege Kabul, 517
518; 525
Ustariz, Jerome, Spanish economist, 157
Utrecht, Congress of, Bothmer at, 13
313
Treaty of, Handel and, 19; and
Dunkirk, 23, 464 ; 49 ; 58 ; 60 ; 63 sq.
and the Old Pretender, 96; 97; 104; 121
sq. ; Bipperda at, 139 ; and Spain, 151.
167, 249 ; 153 ; 159 ; 178 ; 181 ; France
and, 194 ; 331 ; 391 ; and America, 411
428 ; and the Papacy, 587 ; and Venice,
605
Valdore, Lally at, S49
Valencia, the liberties of, 136
de Alcantara, taken by British
troops, 426
Valle, Don Joseph de, Spanish general, 381
Valois, Charlotte-Aglae de. See Modena,
Duchess of
Valori, Count de, French ambassador at
Berlin, 338
Valparaiso, Count of, 364
Vansittart, Henry, Governor of Bengal,
558 sqq.
Varalfi, Treaty of, 676, 782
Varennes, the flight to, 477, 783
Varoux, attacked by the French, 247
VaucouUeur, French economist, 599
Vaud, Davel and, 625
Vanlgrenaut, French ambassador in Spain,
156
Vaur^al, Louis Guido Gu^rapin de, Bishop
of Bennes, ambassador to Spain, 159
sqq. ; 167
Vaux, Count de, in Corsica, 350
Velasco, Don Luis, Spanish officer, 369
Velletri, and the War of the Austrian Suc-
cession, 241 ; 596
Vellingk, Count, Swedish governor of Bre-
men, 28
Venice, the Brunswiok-Liineburg Dukes
and, 5 ; 30 ; 124 ; 149 ; John Law in,
177 ; and the Austrian Succession, 228 ;
and Clement XI, 687 ; and Benedict
XIV, 590; Clement XIV and, 694; 605;
decline of, 606 sq. ; 675 ; 796 ; 812
Verden, 21; annexed to Hanover, 23 sq.,
36; 28; 34; 89; Sweden and, 104
Verdun, Bishop of. See Nioolay
Verelst, Harry, Governor of Bengal, 566 ;
557 sq.
Vergennes, Charles Gravier, Count de,
French ambassador in Constantinople,
355 ; in Sweden, 368, 768 ; 379 sq. ; and
the American peace, 471 sq. ; 644
Vernon, Sir Edward, Admiral, 72 ; 454
Versailles, Louis XV at, 132, 164; first
Treaty of (1756), 251 sqq., 320 sq., 336,
345, 400 sq. ; second Treaty of (1757),
262, 389; third Treaty of (1788), 342,
549, 577, 597
Vesuvius, eruption of, 600
Vianna, Nunez, Brazilian rebel leader, 390
Viasemski, Prince, Bussian statesman, 682;
687; 693 sq.; 697
Victor Amadeus II, King of Sicily and
afterwards of Sardinia, 30 ; 82 sq. ;
124 sq.; 169; and Clement XI, 587;
589 sq.
Vieira, Antonio, Jesuit, in Brazil, 390
Vienna, siege of (1683), 4; 30; EipperdA's
mission to, 139 sq. ; 151 ; and the War
of the Austrian Succession, 231 sqq. ;
240 ; 276 ; 315 sq. ; Pius VI at, 636 ; 637
' Preliminaries of, 146 sq., 155 ; Treaty
of (1719), 33; Treaty of (1726), 57 sq.,
141, 150, 202 ; Treaty of (1731), 60, 149,
202
Vigny, Alfred de, poet, 882
Vigo, capture of, 36 ; 125
ViUarias, Marquis of, Spanish statesman,
65 sqq. ; 156; 159; Elisabeth Farnese
and, 166; 361
Villars, Claude-Louis-Hector, Duke of.
Marshal of France, 146 ; 152 sqq.
Villavelha, capture of, 426
Villeneuve, Marquis de, French ambassador
in Turkey, 304
VUleroi, Francois de Neufville, Duke of,
131; 144
Vilmanstrand, Swedish defeat at, 310, 760 ;
314
Vilna, Bishop of. See Brzostowski
Vintimille, Panline-Faieit^, Marquise de,
and Louis XV, 164; 330
Virginia, 52 ; 187 ; trade of, 447
Viry, Count de, Sardinian Minister, 424
Visoonti, Giulio, Viceroy of Naples, 153
Vishnyakoff, Bussian resident at Stambul,
306
Vistula, 196 ; French reverses on, 197 ;
304 ; 322 ; 326 ; 328 ; fortifications on,
729 ; 732 sq.
1018
Index.
Vitebsk, district of, 669
Vlytingen, British force at, 248
Voisin, I>aniel-Fran9oiB, Chancellor of
France, 121
Volga, the, peasant settlements on, 690
Volhynia, 198; Austria and, 630
Voltaire, Franijois-Marie Arouet de, 79 ;
and Fleury, 162; 165; and Frederick
the Great, 267, 298 ; 416 ; 589 ; and
Catharine II, 657, 664, 678, 686, 698;
724; and Bousseau, 825 sq. ; 833
Vonck, Belgian politician, 652 sq.
Vorontsoff, Elizabeth, mistress of Peter III,
660 sq.
Count Michael, Grand Chancellor of
Bnssia, 311; 322; 327
Wade, George, Field-marshal, 107; 114;
240
Wager, Sir Charles, Admiral, 60 ; 145 ;
147; 150
Wake, William, Archbishop of Canterbury,
78
Waldeok, George Frederick, Count of, 4
WaJdegrave, James Waldegrave, first Earl,
63 ; 162
Maria, Countess Dowager, married
to the Duke of Gloucester, 445
Waldmiinchen, Austrians in, 240
Wall, Eiohard, Spanish Minister of Foreign
Affairs, 344; 364 sq. ; 367; retires,
370
Wallaehia (see aho Danubian Principali-
ties), 630 ; Turkey and, 634 ; 648 ; 672 ;
674
Wallqvist, Olaf, Bishop of Wexio, 777 sq. ;
780
Walpole of Wolterton, Horatio Walpole,
first Lord, 27 ; 54 ; 148 ; 308
Horace, Earl of Orford. See Orford
Sir Robert, Earl of Orford. See
Orford
Walsh, Anthony, Jacobite, 111
Walsingham, William de Grey, Lord,
Attorney-general, 437 ; 441
Wandiwash, battle of, 548
Warburton, William, Bishop of Gloucester,
78 ; 431
Ware, Sir James, historian, 800
WargaOu, Convention of, 576
Warkworth, the Old Pretender proclaimed
at, 98
Warren, Sir Peter, Vice-admiral, 248
Warsaw, 152 ; Diet at, 194, 197 ; Stanislaus
in, 195 ; 196 ; Bussian agents in, 667 ;
670
Warthe river, 279 ; Cossacks on, 281 ;
286 ; 291 ; 717
Warton, Thomas, writings of, 830
Wassenaer, Dutch envoy to Paris, 246
Watson, Charles, Bear-admiral, in India,
531; 552; and Clive, 553; 554; 566
Watts, resident at Murshidib^d, 564; 556
Wedderbum, Alexander. See Bosslyu,
first Earl of
Wedell, Carl Heinrich von, Prussian
general, 287; 292; 324
Weiohselmiinde, port of Danzig, 197
Weimar, 267 ; Frederick the Great at, 268
Weisse Berg, the, at Prague, Frederick the
Great at, 257 ; 259
Weissembourg, the King of Poland at, 143
Welsh Copper Company, 179
Wentworth, Sir Thomas. See Strafford,
first Earl of
Werdenberg, rising in, 625
Wesley, Charles, 82; 87; 89
John, 40 ; 77 ; 80 sqq. ; in Ireland,
489; death of, 86
West India and Guinea Company (Danish),
738
Company (Dutch), 389
Indies, slave trade in, 25 ; and
British trade, 52 ; 60 sq. ; 65 ; smug-
gling in, 152 ; 168 ; 177 ; 183 ; economic
conditions in, 184 ; European Powers in,
185 sq. ; 189; 236; 248; France and,
327, 346 sq. ; 350 ; Choiseul's schemes
in, 351 ; Spanish losses in, 369 ; Franco-
Spanish expedition to, 379; Pitt and,
414 sq. ; 449 ; 451 ; Franco-British war
in, 452 sqq. ; Denmark and, 756
Westminster, Treaty of (1716), 25, 29 sq.,
104 ; Treaty of (1756), 251 sq., 254, 820,
334, 399 sqq., 403, 407; Treaty of
(1677-8), 449
Westphalia, iron industry in, 719 ; Peace
of, 2; 252; 273; and Switzerland, 612,
614, 622
Wetter, Family of, 626
Wettin, House of, 704
Weymouth, third Viscount. See Bath, first
Marquis of
Wharton, Philip Wharton, Duke of, 142
Whiteboy disturbances in Ireland, 484, 490
Whitefield, George, Methodist, 81 sqq.
Whitshed, Irish Chief Justice, 485
Whitworth, Charles Whitworth, Lord, 28 ;
36
Widdrington, William Widdrington, fourth
Lord, 101 ; 103
Wiesensteig, Saxony and, 632
Wigan, Government force at, 101
Wight, Isle of, threatened invasion of, 376
Wightman, Joseph, Major-general, 106
Wilberforoe, William, and the abolition of
slavery, 188 ; 472 ; 475
Wilohingen, revolt at, 626
Wilhelmina, Princess of Prussia. See
Baireuth, Margravine of
Wilhelmsthal, battle of, 426
Wilkersdorf, Prussian army at, 282; 286
Wilkes, John,and thejP^ortAS-riion,429 sqq. ;
returns to England, 440 ; 441 sq. ; 444 ;
takes his seat in Parliament, 446 ; 460 ;
and Beform, 465
William III, King of England, Scotland,
and Ireland, and Prince of Orange, 4;
6 ; and the succession, 7 sq,. ; death of,
9 ; 31 ; 586 ; 808 ; 815
Index.
1019
William Augustus, Duke of Cumberland.
See Cumbeiland
Williams, Sir Charles Hanbury, British
ambassador in Bussia, 200 ; 334
Wills, Sir Charles, General, 101
Wilmington, Spencer Compton, Earl of,
71; 73
Wilson, Andrew, smuggler, 108
Winchelsea and Nottingham, Daniel Finch,
second Earl of, 435
Windau, port of, 666
Windward Coast, Portuguese on, 187
Islands, Enghsh and French in, 184
sqq.
Winterfeldt, Johann Carl von, Prussian
general, 256 sq. ; 264
Wintoun, George Seton, fifth Earl of, 101 ;
103
Wisin, Bussian dramatist, 698
Wittenberg, 265; 273; Frederick II and,
704
Wobersnow, General von, 291
WoUner, Johann Christoph von, Prussian
statesman, 726 sq.
Wohlau, Duchy of, 229
Wongrowa, Polish malcontents at, 195
Wood, Anthony, antiquary, 797
Eobert, Under-Secretary of State,
432
William, and the Irish coinage, 47 ;
80 ; 484 sq.
Woodfall, Henry Sampson, printer of the
Letters of Junius, 441
Wooler, Government force at, 101
Wordsworth, William, 824 sqq.; 833 sq.;
836 sq.
Worms, Pragmatic army at, 238
Treaty of, 239 ; 608
Wrangel, Swedish general, 760
Wren, Matthew, 797
Wright, Abraham, 798
Wiirtemberg, and the Austrian Succession,
228 ; and the Treaty of Fiissen, 242 ; 246
Sophia of. See Maria Feodorovna
Wurmb, Prussian Privy Councillor, 721
Wych, Sir Cyril, English minister at
St Petersburg, 315
Wyndham, Sir William, 71
William, Secretary to the Viceroy of
Ireland, 464 ; 478
Yagnzhinski, Russian ambassador at Berlin,
302
Tanaon, France and, 347
Yarmouth, Amalie Sophie Marianne Wall-
moden, Countess of, 42 ; 76 ; 403
Telverton, Barry. See Avonmore, Yiscount
Yenikale, Bussia and, 634, 674
York, Jacobite trials at, 117
Henry, Cardinal, 113 ; 117
Yorke, Joseph (Lord Dover), Major-general,
278 ; British Minister at the Hague, 343
Charles, Lord Chancellor, 435 sqq. ;
443
Yorkshire, General Wade in, 114; Eeform
meetings in, 455 ; 504
Yorktown, capitulates, 456
Young, Edward, poet, 828
Ypres, taken by Marshal Saxe, 240; 339
Zabergrund, ravine of, 283 sqq.
Zeeland, 247; serfdom in, 736
Zeitz, Austrians in, 297
Zellweger, family of, 625
Zicher, Bussians at, 284
Ziethen, Johann Joachim von, Prussian
general, 261; 296
Zips, the, 630; Austria and, 669 sq.; 730
Ziskaberg, Austrian force on, 257
Zittau, Austrian force at, 262
Znaim, Austrian army in, 233 sq.
Zollner, Prussian Court Chaplain, 727
Zorndorf, 281 sq. ; battle of, 283 sqq., 290,
292, 295, 322
Zoutman, Admiral, in the North Sea, 452
Ziillichau, Prussian army at, 291 sq.
Zug, canton of, 613 ; town of, 625
Zurich, canton of, 613 sqq., 619, 622 ; town
of, 625
Zurlauben, family of, 625
Zweibriieken, Duke Charles of, 703
Duke Charles H of, 631; 633
Duke William of, 647
Zwingli, Ulrioh, Swiss Beformer, 619
CAMBKIDaE: PBINTED BT JOHN CLAT, U.A. AT TEE UNIVEBSITY PBEB3.
Live Music
Archive
Librivox
Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland
Museum of Art
Internet
Arcade
Console Living Room
Open Library
American
Libraries
TV News
Understanding
9/11